LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
That’s my argument though. As I've stated in other posts….whatever the intended message is, it’s not the message that is actually being perceived by some people (or perhaps many people).
There’s a clear difference between a message of tolerance and a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community. The same symbols worn in tolerance, are waved in celebration. So the message is obviously not clear enough.
We may be able to enforce tolerance, but surely you see the dangers of enforcing celebration…that goes for anything.
Yes, when cases involving United and small clubs receive similar numbers on Reddit, then the small club cases obviously received far more media noise.
That was a very obvious reference to your "it leads to some of the worst atrocities we have seen in history", why play dumb? I assume you're playing, if you missed that you have other issues to address.
There's a big difference between "believe" and "act". It is absolutely essential in any society that claims to uphold freedom in any sense, that individuals within that society be able to believe whatever they wish.
I cannot imagine you are actually advocating for people's opinions to be policed. Again, I'm talking about people's opinions. What happens inside their own heads. The idea of policing that is Orwellian in the extreme. In addition, it's a terrible idea for society.
You cannot seriously be advocating, for example, for people to go to jail because they thought the wrong thought.
They're not similar numbers though.
Ok like I said peace out no need to start fling insults, you disagree with me and as I have tried to argue that is your inalienable right, however let's be civil please
What insults? You're out here calling people oppressors and as bad as bigots, but recoiling when you get the softest of pushback, when you act like that it's hard to take you seriously. Someone cynical would suspect you're lying again.
Playing dumb or just dumb, or having other issues, also calling my a liar, not the worst things anyone has said to me by a country mile but I still find it unnecessarily insulting
As for the rest, it is late I don't want to fall out with you or anyone else, I have no intention to do anything other than to ask everyone to one day accept each other warts and all, because I genuinely believe that it is the way we live together best
It's so sweet of you to accept the oppressors and bigots, warts and all, even though they dared to disagree with Mazraoui's choice. You're a saint!
I believe the players have a right to not wear it, its their decision. Im not gay or Muslim, and so I'd rather not tell people what they should or shouldn't believe in.
I do have a question though, for the Englishmen condemning Mazraoui, with Islam being the fastest growing religion in England, do you believe the country should still accept, and allow them to practice their religion?
I ask this because you can't expect them to teach a version of their religion that YOU agree with, because that isn't Islam at that point. I don't think its possible to say we accept Muslims, but don't want them to openly express their teachings, and teach it to their children and friends. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. You accept Muslims and their rights to their beliefs, including that on the LGBTQ community, or you reject the religion.
I ask this because where I come from, religion is rarely ever a debate. So I get curious to see what the solution is to these dilemmas.
I do have a question though, for the Englishmen condemning Mazraoui, with Islam being the fastest growing religion in England, do you believe the country should still accept, and allow them to practice their religion?
I ask this because you can't expect them to teach a version of their religion that YOU agree with, because that isn't Islam at that point. I don't think its possible to say we accept Muslims, but don't want them to openly express their teachings, and teach it to their children and friends. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. You accept Muslims and their rights to their beliefs, including that on the LGBTQ community, or you reject the religion.
I ask this because where I come from, religion is rarely ever a debate. So I get curious to see what the solution is to these dilemmas.
I'm not advocating for that. I'm just disagreeing with his premise that people are allowed to believe whatever they want and that no beliefs are incorrect.
There is no society on earth where that's the case and in every society there are certain beliefs that are seen as incorrect. This shouldn't be a difficult thought to process.
But if you were you would have the right in your opinion? Seems like an odd thing to say TBH.
Allowing religious freedom is not at all the same thing as what you think of an individuals action motivated by their religion. I think all religion is terribly harmful for society but that doesn't mean people should have the right to believe whatever nonsense they want to or that pointing out problems that result from religion and/or religious motivated views and actions.
Religious freedom give people the right to be religious. It doesn't in any way meant that anything said to be motivated by that religion should be accepted by society or be beyond criticism.
Nope. Dont twist the narrative on the first sentence please. I am acknowledging that im speaking from a privileged position as I don't face homophobia or Islamophobia as they would.
Your last two paragraphs don't really answer my question. What is the solution around these conflicting views. This situation happened in England, and I would say from my experience, that year on year, the Muslim population is growing quite quickly through immigration, and the Muslim population having the highest birth rates. The country also is trying to break down systemic issues affecting the LGBT community.
Islam (and Christianity) will always oppose the LGBTQ community. Because accepting it means it becomes a whole new set of beliefs and effectively a new religion.
Wanting both to coexist will lead to thousands of occasions like today. Is that okay?
Honestly couldn't give a good Goddamn about Maz's (or any other player's) personal beliefs so long as they do a job for us on the pitch.
Anyway,
I would like minority or disadvantaged groups to have acceptance in society, and equal rights. For that, I think an important majority of people need to to 1) not support laws that infringe on the rights of these groups, 2) treat these people with respect and politeness in public and private interactions, and 3) do not engage in discriminatory practices. Where I (think I) disagree with some posters, is that I think it's fine that many people will never move much further than this; they will never embrace, just accept. I think this is to some degree impossible to avoid (at least in medium term) because people should also have freedom of thought, association, etc.
When it comes to religious belief I don't care that much. I don't think there is a religious exemption for being a homophobe or racist. Now, as others have noted, there is hypocrisy and inconsistency in claiming LGBT prejudice is due to a religious belief. I think that 'religious belief' is an excuse that society (?) has agreed to accept for the sake of appearances. This is how it relates to the issue of taking the knee: some players genuinely want to 'address the message better' and have thought about it, but for others it is another excuse that society (?) has agreed to accept. So I cannot answer the question of justifying an anti-racism campaign out of religious beliefs. I would not defend the merits of rejecting any campaign on religious grounds; I just think they can do it.
The issue of 'tolerance of the intolerant' has also come up, that is something that you can approach on a philosophical level but my concern really is more practical. Because this attitude of heavy opposition to 'intolerance', of deeming certain things unacceptable, has been fairly common in the last years, and looking at the political landscape, including on LGBTQ issues, I'm not sure how effective it's actually been.
I'll be honest and say I'm a bit lost as to what we are arguing about, what our points of disagreement are, what you are wanting a response to, etc. So I can't really 'respond.' I can just give you a general comment and try to tie it to your comments and the general comments in the thread.
I would like minority or disadvantaged groups to have acceptance in society, and equal rights. For that, I think an important majority of people need to to 1) not support laws that infringe on the rights of these groups, 2) treat these people with respect and politeness in public and private interactions, and 3) do not engage in discriminatory practices. Where I (think I) disagree with some posters, is that I think it's fine that many people will never move much further than this; they will never embrace, just accept. I think this is to some degree impossible to avoid (at least in medium term) because people should also have freedom of thought, association, etc.
When it comes to religious belief I don't care that much. I don't think there is a religious exemption for being a homophobe or racist. Now, as others have noted, there is hypocrisy and inconsistency in claiming LGBT prejudice is due to a religious belief. I think that 'religious belief' is an excuse that society (?) has agreed to accept for the sake of appearances. This is how it relates to the issue of taking the knee: some players genuinely want to 'address the message better' and have thought about it, but for others it is another excuse that society (?) has agreed to accept. So I cannot answer the question of justifying an anti-racism campaign out of religious beliefs. I would not defend the merits of rejecting any campaign on religious grounds; I just think they can do it.
The issue of 'tolerance of the intolerant' has also come up, that is something that you can approach on a philosophical level but my concern really is more practical. Because this attitude of heavy opposition to 'intolerance', of deeming certain things unacceptable, has been fairly common in the last years, and looking at the political landscape, including on LGBTQ issues, I'm not sure how effective it's actually been.
I'm not twisting anything. You said you didn't have (or want) an opinion because you aren't gay or Muslim. That has nothing to do with someone having an opinion.
The solution is that you allow individual freedom of religion but make sure that it is totally separate from governance of the country.
The Bible only possibly mentions homosexuality in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is generally batshit crazy, so can be ignored by any rational religious person. There is no specific mention at all in the New Testament and any vague interpretation of anything like this relies on torturing old Greek words to men what you want. Greece where homosexuality was not only accepted but raised up as the purest form of love. The Quran also has no mention of any such issues except unless you torture some passages to mean what you want them to mean. Even if you don't think that they are all essentially fiction there is no rational justification for gay or trans hate in these books.
Christianity and Islam promote gay and trans hate because they want to, based on willful (mis)interpretation, and not because their holy books tell them to do so.
Huh? Not up to me to dictate what form of religion anyone takes (barring legally banned cults). I will however criticise and or all when they deserve criticism.
So basically the answer is we accept religions that conflict with societal beliefs, but we will then continuously beat them down when they practice what they believe is right according to their belief system.
The reason I say this is because there is an obscene about of islamophobia and homophobia that has occurred after today. Two sides of the same coin in my book and no common sense to any of it.
I have no issue with people have differing views, my issue is when someone on either side thinks they're taking the moral high ground, when in reality their views and comments are equally as offensive as a person on the other end.
The club spent money on Mazroaui, who had been very public regarding his beliefs, the fans have continued to cheer him on non-stop for the past 3 months. Throughout that whole time, his beliefs never changed. Then the other players decided to also not wear the jackets, it doesn't look like it was a demand from him. But now people will attach his religion and God, and beat him down. But the fans will continue to cheer the same players that made the decision to back him, and continue to pour the money into the same club who signed him, and then spend countless hours on a forum that is all things Manchester United.
At no point did Mazroaui change his beliefs and say anything the club didn't know. We cant sign someone and move them to the country, and then attack them when they practice what is normal to them.
Used to be you couldn't have any political or religious iconography at football.
Was better that way and it ought never have been changed. Open the door to one cause and you open the door to all of them. For example, wasn't there a Ukrainian thing? Where's the Palestinian counterpart?
Either you do it consistently or you feck the whole thing off. Doing it consistently is clearly not what the governing authorities want, therefore, feck the entire thing off.
Was better that way and it ought never have been changed. Open the door to one cause and you open the door to all of them. For example, wasn't there a Ukrainian thing? Where's the Palestinian counterpart?
Either you do it consistently or you feck the whole thing off. Doing it consistently is clearly not what the governing authorities want, therefore, feck the entire thing off.
I agree with both posts. While I personally dislike regressive viewpoints, and wish the world was more open minded and progressive, you can’t police people’s beliefs. Religion is the source of a lot of conflict and tears communities apart far more than it brings them together but I too have to accept that it exists and moving the needle on some archaic beliefs borne out of religion will take time given it’s importance to people. There’s millions of human beings and all their past generations being raised to hang on every word of ancient scripts. It’s absolutely ridiculous but also is what it is.
At the end of the day, I’d genuinely care if Mazraoui did a Suarez and displayed abhorrent qualities in his behaviour towards a person of a certain gender / sexual orientation. Refusing to wear a shirt is nothing.
Is there not a problem in consistency of their own messaging here? I don't know the specifics but to appease the right, or because he believes it, Starmer made it known that he doesn't really support this cause as did most notable front-bench Labour mps in the run up to the election.
For example, what is the status of men which have transitioned being allowed to play for the England national team? Surely that's more important, if you genuinely believe in this cause, than forcing people to wear an armband.
The "stamp it out" campaign, was I think is the only successful campaign in armband history has become a kind of political model. It was used for Ukraine, and this had to be a top-down decision for obvious reasons, which is fine, if you'd also used it for Yemen, the Congo, Palestine, Syria and so on. But it's not. The lack of consistency, not the morality taken as a snapshot, is what bothers me. That is what renders the thing immoral: selectivity. Not the individual causes themselves but the fact that some causes get in whilst others haven't a hope and this is entirely political, ideological, and bigoted, on behalf of the ruling authorities (and broader top-down structure).
That's why I say feck it all off.
For example, what is the status of men which have transitioned being allowed to play for the England national team? Surely that's more important, if you genuinely believe in this cause, than forcing people to wear an armband.
The "stamp it out" campaign, was I think is the only successful campaign in armband history has become a kind of political model. It was used for Ukraine, and this had to be a top-down decision for obvious reasons, which is fine, if you'd also used it for Yemen, the Congo, Palestine, Syria and so on. But it's not. The lack of consistency, not the morality taken as a snapshot, is what bothers me. That is what renders the thing immoral: selectivity. Not the individual causes themselves but the fact that some causes get in whilst others haven't a hope and this is entirely political, ideological, and bigoted, on behalf of the ruling authorities (and broader top-down structure).
That's why I say feck it all off.
So it is down to
A) Maz is being oppressive towards the LGBT community by not wearing the jacket.
B) Maz should be allowed the freedom not to wear it.
United is the club. If the club decides to support the LGBTQ+++ community, then they should do it and drop Maz from the squad. Perhaps that would be the gesture that united the team and the community the most. Not forcing him, not forcing the rest not to.
A) Maz is being oppressive towards the LGBT community by not wearing the jacket.
B) Maz should be allowed the freedom not to wear it.
United is the club. If the club decides to support the LGBTQ+++ community, then they should do it and drop Maz from the squad. Perhaps that would be the gesture that united the team and the community the most. Not forcing him, not forcing the rest not to.
What an odd way to look at it. Unless you are coming from the viewpoint that your (or whoever's) religion should be part of government and law - then if so which religion? You (they/whoever) is free to practice their religion but everyone else is free not to have their lives governed by other people's mysticism, and free to have an opinion about it. It is how modern secular countries should work.
I'm sure lots of homophobia underlies many opinions, and some people may hide their Islamophobia in the same discussions, but objecting to views promoted by a religion doesn't make you Islamophobic. You can hold very dim opinions about common Islamic views on gay people, trans people, women etc without involving extreme fear or hatred, or ignoring that there are many kind acts motivated by a religion.
This is heading off into "all opinions are equal" nonsense. All opinions are not equal, as some are far better thought through, moral and supported by evidence. And of course any view justified by what an invisible supernatural being instructs is going to potentially be deeply problematic.
I don't see the issue at all. He decided to do something based on his religious beliefs, others are equally entitled to an opinion on his religious beliefs. As a highly paid sportsman who knows that he is in the public spotlight he can't expect it not to be commented on. If he doesn't like it then he needs to put his big boys pants on and suck it up. You can't have it both ways.
You most certainly can. That is what living in a free society allows. What else should be beyond criticism?
I'm really sceptical of this muslim's are homophobic line of reasoning. You hear the same from christians and the justifications for it dont hold up at all.
I support LGBT rights. But I have to ask this. You're a biologist, right?
Do you believe that a man who transitions to a woman (say they feel they were born a woman in a man's body) is actually a woman? Because you must come against that which you usually let govern your opinion expression: evidence.
I don't mean those who are born with both sexual organs as a child (in case anyone is wondering) nor am I interested in any bigotry on the issue.
I know this inside out. The social performativity of gender. I've read all the books on the topic. But it is extremely relative (from the linguistic relativist performativity school a lot of support is drawn) and something I have to ask you about as I know you are a biologist.
I mean, I'm trained in a different discipline. I can accept, professionally (within my own discipline), something like T (and whatever else is plus) but what does the biologist, or biology, say?
You might respond that you do not believe they are literally female but there's no harm in accepting them as such? That would be my guess. That's sort of where I am (unless it is a birth issue). I.e., try not to throw stones and avoid discrimination whatever opinion you form.
Yeah, fair enough. I think I an agree with pretty much all of that. And yeah, I would also say I wouldn't necessarily need 'embrace' and would be delighted with just much broader acceptance for starters!
Former biologist for full disclosure.
The underlying genetics doesn't change if someone transitions, be that from male, female or one of the many other (relatively rare) cases. Obviously.
However, nobody is trying to transition their genotype. People are talking about their gender and not their biological sex. Inc some cases this may include changes to their phenotype with hormones or surgery to better align with their gender.
Although gender and biological sex often aligning they also often don't (probably something far from unique to humans) and I have no idea why people struggle with that so much.
In the majority of things I don't see that biology matters much at all. If people want to transition and be treated as a different gender I think it is only reasonable and polite to do so almost unquestioningly. I guess the main thing where biology is an issue is trans females competing in elite sport. I totally get that trans women want to be treated as women in all respects, and having a separate competition for them (even in the unlikely even that there were enough people to have a competition) would feel more like being treated as a para sportsperson, rather than as the gender you are. But as you can't avoid the fact that going through puberty as a male gives life long physical advantages I don't see how you can accommodate that in Elite women's competition, without unfairly disadvantaging CIS women. Sometimes you have to go with the least shit option, even if that isn't great for everyone.
True. Given the world we have, at any rate.
It's crazy how everything is viewed in complete black and white and no nuance. Just because someone does not want to wear a rainbow jacket suddenly means that he hates all LGBT people and wants them all to be exterminated? The world does not work in absolutes, yet these sort of "events" always shows that's actually how most people think. All these ridiculous token gestures like "taking a knee" or wearing rainbow clothes are at the end of the day, mere token gestures and virtue signaling. The main outcome of these ridiculous events always ends up with people being outraged or cancelling the people who does not want to take part. In an event about inclusivity and acceptance, the end result is always an absolute refusal to include differing opinions, refuse a certain religion or race's point of view, and demonizing them.
Personally, I don't mind or care enough about LGBT issues to have a strong opinion on it, but will wear any rainbow token gesture thing if I am needed to. However, I completely understand the point of view of people who does not want to be associated with it, and respect their decision without being outraged about it. Telling people that they MUST accept your opinions or else be completely exiled or vilified just sounds too fecking totalitarian to me. It would actually push them even further away from supporting the cause, which I assume is the main objective of these events? I would actually prefer that all these events be excluded from football because it is just hypocritical. FA accepted and bowed to the demands of UAE , and then now they are telling the players to champion LGBT rights? The same footballing world that gave Qatar the 2022 World Cup and soon Saudi the 2034 World Cup? There is no sincerity at all behind all these actions taken and are just all a front.
Personally, I don't mind or care enough about LGBT issues to have a strong opinion on it, but will wear any rainbow token gesture thing if I am needed to. However, I completely understand the point of view of people who does not want to be associated with it, and respect their decision without being outraged about it. Telling people that they MUST accept your opinions or else be completely exiled or vilified just sounds too fecking totalitarian to me. It would actually push them even further away from supporting the cause, which I assume is the main objective of these events? I would actually prefer that all these events be excluded from football because it is just hypocritical. FA accepted and bowed to the demands of UAE , and then now they are telling the players to champion LGBT rights? The same footballing world that gave Qatar the 2022 World Cup and soon Saudi the 2034 World Cup? There is no sincerity at all behind all these actions taken and are just all a front.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,828
- Supports
️
No. I am saying you can believe that but you absolutely cannot then control the reaction and judgement of others for that belief. If you believe in something homophobic then everyone else has the right to point out that that particular thing is a shit thing to believe.
Religion is very old. As a result many of its old views haven’t moved with the times. If we don’t accept this and progress as a society then we’re back to stoning people for who they love. It’s bollocks to suggest that we should just never make any judgement or comment on someone’s beliefs if those beliefs have real world harmful consequences.
For example, let’s say a religion says it’s ok for a person to commit murder and rape under certain conditions, a follower of that religion commits those acts. What should society do?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,828
- Supports
- ️
Nobody is saying you can’t believe it. We’re saying believing it doesn’t then make you immune from consequence and judgement.
Religion is very important for some but just because it’s important for some, it should never ever be beyond any questioning or challenging. That is an incredibly backwards way of thinking.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,828
- Supports
- ️
Ok so do you believe me telling someone they can’t believe murder is ok is oppression?
I can’t point to a single time in history where taking issue with homophobia has caused an atrocity. Can you?
Also the last point is rubbish. Who are you to challenge, oppose, criticise or educate someone when their god told them this? Do you see the flaw here?
As a biologist, I'll add that what you've read about (social performance), rather than the biology, is I think what we instinctively pick up on when we address and mentally categorise people into genders.
For "are they actually a woman" - you can go be several definitions. Biologically, by genotype no, by obvious anatomy it's either no or ambiguous, by internal hormone level it's probably yes... And if that suggests that it's a lousy or vague definition of "woman", I agree... but biology (and most sciences) just have generally lousy definitions.
For example, we're taught several definitions of the word species, and the most widely accepted one is absolutely meaningless for the vast majority of life on earth (bacteria, which are asexual), and doesn't work even for some of the cases where it's supposed to work - some neat examples here in this very short writeup: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/
But "species", and perhaps "woman", are both words that are useful in categorizing the world around us into broadly observable patterns. And context determines which "definition" gets used.
That's what I was getting at, really. Linguistic archetypal categoricals. This is ontological. It forms/frames one's understanding of the world and we encounter it through words at an early age. There's a lot to this. But you will no doubt understand the point regarding fluidity of categories and also the applicability of "lens" when it comes to being human rather than some knowledge machine which knows this definition (never correct...) for this "thing".
*Definitions are relationally intertwined with each other. It amounts to ontological silos where as soon as one discipline cannot account for something (its definition is not adequate) we move to another. And this is the "done thing" in science, not some deviation. I.e., the interrelation of physics and biology.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,828
- Supports
- ️
That’s not the only two options.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,828
- Supports
- ️
Do you mean on here? If so where?
When was that? Not in my lifetime (and I'm old).
Check out the Sheik Jassim buying United thread. So much on there.
Do you have any examples? I’m curious.
I must've missed all the times players got banned for crossing themselves or dropping to their knees and praying on the pitch.
I don't think they should get into any trouble at all for the above but players have been expressing their religion on the pitch forever.
As for actual signs and messages on shirts, many, many clubs in europe have Christian imagery on their shirts (crosses). There's even one Premier League side with a satanic symbol!