LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football

HTG said:
Criticism is not oppression. Discriminating people based on the way they were born is. Speaking out against it is either self defense or basic human decency. Things you seem to be lacking. They are at least missing from your posts.
Click to expand...
For a start you believe he is wrong, that doesn't make you right.

Secondly I hate any oppression, absolutely loath it with a passion, gay people should feel free to be gay and not oppressed by anyone, makes me very sad that is not the case, but as far as I am aware Maz has never oppressed anyone he has just refused to wear a symbol.

Would you wear an anti gay symbol?
 
dubplate warrior said:
It hasn't been handled poorly at all. It was a voluntary thing and the team decided to not wear the jackets. I doubt anyone would have stopped a player if they wanted to that badly.

It was leaked. That's the bigger issue.
Click to expand...
Nahh, the leaker did the right thing. Everyone should know this prick is a bigot.
 
Mogget said:
Why though?

If someone believes in a religion that has bigoted teachings, and which discriminates against certain members of society, why would you defend their right to believe in that?

Just as a hypothetical, if someone believed in a religion which explicitly called for certain people to be harmed, would you still their right to believe in it?
Click to expand...
To believe in it yes to action it no
 
Zed 101 said:
You miss the point, you are talking extremes, for a start there will never be an anti-Nazi day but hypothetically as much as I hate Nazism, I would not expect anyone to wear any sign or political statement they have not volunteered to, the whole point of having a society that functions is to accept that everyone has the right to their beliefs without persecution.

Would I want to go out with him for drinks, absolutely not, would I jump on him if he ever publicly voiced word one of his beliefs absolutely in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

I consider this very extreme: https://www.statista.com/statistics/623990/sexual-orientation-hate-crimes-in-england-and-wales/

If these numbers were for jews being attacked by nazis, we both know this hypothetical player would be fired on the spot for refusing to take part.

Part of the issue is that society as a whole doesn't take the daily struggles of the lgbtq community seriously, otherwise no one would be saying "oh c'mon it's just one bloke's opinion, respect it and move on".
 
The amount of people here who equate the choice of adhering to religious believes with being born with a certain sexuality is absolutely shocking. And it reeks of ignorance and quite frankly intellectual poverty. One must either be dim witted to believe these are the same thing, or just flat out dishonest.
And asking those who are affected by this discrimination to be tolerant of these views is insulting in a way, I really wish they never have to understand from their own experiences. Because this is about as degrading a demand as there is. It is a complete reversal of perpetrator and victim. It shifts the blame on the victim, the person who did never choose the reason they are being discriminated for and absolves a person who actively and freely decided to be discriminating, of their wrongdoing. It is an outright heinous thing to do and everyone who does it should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
 
maniak said:
Are all devout practicing muslims homophobes? If the answer is no, it means those who are are actively choosing to be homophobes.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by homophobes. As I mentioned earlier and this applies to all Abrahamic religions while all form of sodomy is understood as immoral some believers follow the logic that they aren't supposed to judge others but they also won't promote actions that are deemed immoral. This applies sodomy, drugs, alcohol, gambling or even being an infidel.

So some are homophobes others aren't like with every single other communities.
 
maniak said:
OK. Is there a point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...
Because you gave some dumb example of a Sunday league game with a couple Muslims and are now using that as an anecdote of how people in that entire community tend to act.

If he chose to wear that, people in his own community, including that of his faith and his family would critical of him. I'm sure he cares more about that than anyone else, and I would too.
 
Zed 101 said:
Beliefs and actions are different things, unfortunately somebody should be able to have Nazi beliefs however horrendous they are as long as they do not act on those beliefs in the way they treat another human, you cannot be thought police and have it both ways, freedom of thought and belief is intrinsic to democracy, how you treat other people is something different and should be strictly controlled.

Condemning somebody for their beliefs is just as bigoted as somebody believing homosexuality is a sin, condemning anyone for any belief is just plain wrong.

What you believe may seem obviously right to you, just because somebody believes the contrary doesn't make you right and them wrong, just means you have different beliefs, ultimately nobody can prove that the religious belief held by some that homosexuality is a sin is wrong, there is no empirical evidence on the subject primarily because all religion is just deluded make belief anyway but still.

Live and let live, believe what you want, just treat everybody the same and don't force your beliefs down somebody else's throat.
Click to expand...
Again. I'm gonna repeat this fact.

There are currently zero openly gay footballers at the highest levels of English/European football.

Correctly, footballers have felt confident enough in previous years to wave a Palestine flag.

They've felt confident enough to speak about being practiticing Christians, Muslims or Jews.

Gay people aren't currently confident to be themselves. They can't "force their beliefs down someone's throat". They can't live and let live because whatever beliefs are held by a minority have stopped them from doing so.
 
noodlehair said:
His religious beliefs require him to disagree with people being gay. I mean there's not really any mititgation there. That's what it is.

I can understand it being a difficult position to put him in, and it could easily be he doesn't really agree with that and/or is fully tolerant of other people's sexuality on a personal level. So there is no reason to attack or hold it against Mazrouri, but its absolutely right to highlight that this is an issue.

It fuels an environment where a gay person can't be comfortable with being gay. Or where a gay person might face abuse or discrimination under the excuse of "religious beliefs".
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the highlighting of the issue however I believe you can disagree with his approach and views and still remain objective but others are jumping to the extreme.
 
JPRouve said:
It depends on what you mean by homophobes. As I mentioned earlier and this applies to all Abrahamic religions while all form of sodomy is understood as immoral some believers follow the logic that they aren't supposed to judge others but they also won't promote actions that are deemed immoral. This applies sodomy, drugs, alcohol, gambling or even being an infidel.

So some are homophobes others aren't like with every single other communities.
Click to expand...
By homphobe I mean someone who doesn't think gay people are deserving of equality and inclusion, which is the point of this campaign.
 
Zed 101 said:
To believe in it yes to action it no
Click to expand...
Do you not think that leads to a more intolerant society? If people are allowed to believe in bigoted teachings, with no repercussions, those beliefs will remain a part of society and become normalised.
 
Zed 101 said:
You miss the point, you are talking extremes, for a start there will never be an anti-Nazi day but hypothetically as much as I hate Nazism, I would not expect anyone to wear any sign or political statement they have not volunteered to, the whole point of having a society that functions is to accept that everyone has the right to their beliefs without persecution.

Would I want to go out with him for drinks, absolutely not, would I jump on him if he ever publicly voiced word one of his beliefs absolutely in a heart beat.
Click to expand...
No. Everyone should be allowed to be themselves without persecution. Unfortunately, Mazraoui does not believe this.
 
Insulting another member
HTG said:
The amount of people here who equate the choice of adhering to religious believes with being born with a certain sexuality is absolutely shocking. And it reeks of ignorance and quite frankly intellectual poverty. One must either be dim witted to believe these are the same thing, or just flat out dishonest.
And asking those who are affected by this discrimination to be tolerant of these views is insulting in a way, I really wish they never have to understand from their own experiences. Because this is about as degrading a demand as there is. It is a complete reversal of perpetrator and victim. It shifts the blame on the victim, the person who did never choose the reason they are being discriminated for and absolves a person who actively and freely decided to be discriminating, of their wrongdoing. It is an outright heinous thing to do and everyone who does it should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
Edited -

Someone has the choice to practice their faiths and disagree with a certain lifestyle. As long as it is tolerated there are no issues.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
No that's just your very poor interpretation of what I said.

If you really believe in inclusion then you should be able to tolerate someone as an individual not wanting to actively promote something that clashes with their religious beliefs. That's not the same as thinking we have to tolerate Nazi's going around clubbing people. Obviously. Painful this even has to be explained to be honest.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with Maz not wearing the armband. My issue is with the other gimps who stood by him. If a more valid reason comes out I will change my mind.

But your post was general and wide ranging. It was poorly stated, not poorly interpreted.
 
dubplate warrior said:
Because you gave some dumb example of a Sunday league game with a couple Muslims and are now using that as an anecdote of how people in that entire community tend to act.

If he chose to wear that, people in his own community, including that of his faith and his family would critical of him. I'm sure he cares more about that than anyone else, and I would too.
Click to expand...
Well I didn't do that though, did I?

My point is that you can be a muslim and still think different people are deserving of respect. Or at the minimum, just go along with a symbolic action to not look like an absolute bigot. Maz couldn't even do this, so I guess it's clear where he stands.

He's not a little puppy, he has agency, he made his choice, he deserves the label.
 
Wouldn't it be more inclusive for players to wear "Stop Hate" or "Humans Rights for All" armbands. This covers all bases and is a fundamental aspect in all religious beliefs.

It could be perceived that the message of such campaigns has gotten little confusing. Are rainbow armbands to promote inclusivity? Or is it now perceived a celebration of the LGBTQ community? Is wearing a Poppy to remember everyone who lost their lives at war? Or is it now perceived a celebration of British Armed forces?

Each individual will have different viewpoint on where the campaigns fall along that spectrum, and I think that's fair.

That is my understand of the root of the issue. From Maz perspective (and I'm not Muslim here, so I'm trying to put myself in his shoes) is that he fully supports human rights for everyone, agrees that no one should have to endure hate or abuse, but he would feel uncomfortable participating in a celebration of something that does not align with his personal beliefs. And that's fine, in the same way it was fine for Matic in choosing not to wear a Poppy because it did not align with his personal beliefs.
 
noodlehair said:
Funnily enough. It is. It is defined as a hate crime exactly the same as discriminating based on sexual orientation is.
Click to expand...
Racism is not defined as a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime motivated by racism or another discriminatory belief.

As I said in my post, we 'tolerate' certain things because of the belief in have freedom of thought, privacy, association. We become less 'tolerant' when people's actions start infringing on the rights of others. Mazraoui did not commit a hate crime or use hate speech or do anything that infringes upon the rights of others in this context.
 
maniak said:
By homphobe I mean someone who doesn't think gay people are deserving of equality and inclusion, which is the point of this campaign.
Click to expand...
Honestly, yes. As someone who grew up as a Muslim and still spends a decent amount of time around Muslims, I would say a lot of Muslims are homophobic.
 
NotThatSoph said:
This script is so dumb.

My "extreme length" of interpreting his consistent choice of refusing to participate in any pro LGBT+ things for religious reasons, and him being against the Day Against Homophobia thing in France, as him not being a supporter of LGBT+ people? "Shouting down anyone who disagrees with [me]" by replaying to, what, two or three people? Do you think I don't disagree with way more than that? You have to be playing dumb as some weird attempt at rhetoric, this cannot be a sincerely held belief.

To make this even better, while accusing me of going to extreme lengths, you just in another comment agreed with someone saying that the reaction Mazraoui is getting is as bad as actual oppression. This is art.
Click to expand...
You can disagree with his fecking decision and still understand why he made it. It’s not fecking hard. Your view seems to be shouting down anyone with a different opinion to you. It’s his decision whether he chooses to wear it or not. He may not agree with LGBT views however he can still choose to let those people live how they want. It’s not hard to understand people have different views on a number of subjects.
 
TheGame said:
I have no problem with the highlighting of the issue however I believe you can disagree with his approach and views and still remain objective but others are jumping to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.

I think calling him a bigot is just as dumb as trying to dismiss it as an issue. He's an international player for a country where he might face persecution himself for supporting LGBT rights. So he has no right choice he can make.

But there are a lot of people in this thread saying things that effectively defend or justify biggotry (and also, for some reason, racism), which is weird.
 
hobbers said:
No that's just your very poor interpretation of what I said.

If you really believe in inclusion then you should be able to tolerate someone as an individual not wanting to actively promote something that clashes with their religious beliefs. That's not the same as thinking we have to tolerate Nazis going around clubbing people. Obviously. Painful this even has to be explained to be honest.
Click to expand...
But what would it mean to be tolerant of him in this case?
 
dubplate warrior said:
You sound like a student in their first university trying to sound smarter than they actually are. Trying too hard to be grandiloquent mate.

Someone has the choice to practice their faiths and disagree with a certain lifestyle. As long as it is tolerated there are no issues.
Click to expand...
No, I sound like a an autistic person. Which I am. You however, sound like a person incapable of finding actual counter arguments, therefore attacking my style instead of my message.
 
TheGame said:
I have no problem with the highlighting of the issue however I believe you can disagree with his approach and views and still remain objective but others are jumping to the extreme.
Click to expand...
You will have a handful of people at either end of the spectrum in discussions like this.
 
dubplate warrior said:
a certain lifestyle
Click to expand...

jump-out-window.gif
 
Cessna said:
One has to tread lightly here.

If the dressing room was prepared to drop it, then it would have been fine. If it was significant for the many to do the gesture, then they should have.
Maz is entitled to his views, but instead of dropping the gesture they might have dropped him for these games.
Click to expand...
This would have been an okay move. Not signing a bigot would have been the best move. It's a shame, he's a great player.
 
TheGame said:
You can disagree with his fecking decision and still understand why he made it. It’s not fecking hard. Your view seems to be shouting down anyone with a different opinion to you. It’s his decision whether he chooses to wear it or not. He may not agree with LGBT views however he can still choose to let those people live how they want.
Click to expand...

Of course you can understand why he made the decision, it's not like it's a mystery. It's extremely straight forward, in fact. And of course it's his decision, this whole thread is because of his repeated own decisions. What do you think you're adding by telling me these things as they're supposed to be a rebuttal?

It's funny how I'm supposedly shouting, while you're not. Don't you have some more journalists to yell abuse at for doing their job? And before you take issue with the word 'abuse', don't forget that your newly adopted stance is that I'm literally oppressing Mazraoui, and that my reaction to his choice is as bad as bigotry.
 
HTG said:
No, I sound like a an autistic person. Which I am. You however, sound like a person incapable of finding actual counter arguments, therefore attacking my style instead of my message.
Click to expand...
The second paragraph was the actual counter argument.
 
hobbers said:
Good question. Being critical of the religious beliefs while not singling him out for having them, I guess.
Click to expand...
He singled himself out. The team backed him up. People are unimpressed by his initial decision. That's not intolerance.

As I said it's the team that were short sighted. It's hard to fathom they didn't see this reaction coming.
 
maniak said:
By homphobe I mean someone who doesn't think gay people are deserving of equality and inclusion, which is the point of this campaign.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to answer it properly because whenever have I had that conversation with religious people the main issue is the afterlife. So they may tolerate it on earth but they believe that it's a sin and that they won't go to Heaven. It's similar to their relation to other monotheist religions, while they may tolerate them and won't mind equality and inclusion now, they won't promote or support it because ultimately they are infidels.
 
United really have done their best to assemble the biggest collection of cnuts in recent years.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Of course you can understand why he made the decision, it's not like it's a mystery. It's extremely straight forward, infact. And of course it's his decision, this whole thread is because of his repeated own decisions. What do you think you're adding by telling me these things as they're supposed to be a rebuttal?

It's funny how I'm supposedly shouting, while you're not. Don't you have some more journalists to tell abuse at for doing their job? And before you take issue with the word 'abuse', don't forget that your newly adopted stance is that I'm literally oppressing Mazraoui, and that my reaction to his choice is as bad as bigotry.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m taking issue with the journalist in question because he is a Cnut. The whole issue should not have been leaked in the first place, it’s related to a training tracksuit. You seem to think it’s good it’s been leaked we disagree on that.

Your views based on Mazouri not wearing something for something he disagrees with is to label him a number of things. I can disagree with him without resorting to that. That’s the fecking difference.
 
Mogget said:
Do you not think that leads to a more intolerant society? If people are allowed to believe in bigoted teachings, with no repercussions, those beliefs will remain a part of society and become normalised.
Click to expand...
There is literally no way to prevent people from believing in anything. Except, I suppose, killing them.

There are repercussions, they are: you don't have to like them, think highly of them, or associate with them. I think less of people who are homophobic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.