Ok I gotta ask, where do you live? Disneyland?
LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
The original post got deleted but I did respond to it so it's quoted in my response...
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/club-sale-it’s-done.474085/post-30685003
It was deleted by staff. I'm not sure how you expect us to stop people posting things. We can only deal with problematic posts after they are posted. When we deleted it, it's a bit much to say there are anti-Islamic posts on here. Nevermind an "obscene amount".
Are you sure? Where do you come from and we can have a Google?
Some Muslims and more Conservative Christians should accept that people are gay and get the feck over it tbh. This very debate sums up why these campaigns are needed in the first place.
I'm all for accepting religion and people's views but too many would happily see us revert back to the early 1960s when homosexuality was illegal. Even, section 28 wasn't even reversed that long ago in the grand scheme of history.
What's interesting is if the debate had been again, centred arpund a campaign supporting BLM again and if a United player had refused to support that, the posts on here would be very different.
All "normal" people accepted that racism was bad. There still seems to be nuance around campaigning for LGTBQ people as if homophobia is a lesser prejudice.
You raise an interesting point that the change in social thinking is so recent (and massively overdue) which makes these campaigns so necessary. It's entirely correct to attempt to expose those that don't support them to shame.
I think it’s an interesting debate because at the end of the day you’re stuck at «almost unqestioningly» which will always make it a case of «yes, i hear what you're saying, but not really» . The pronouns, certain rights but not all of them, which at the end of the day just builds under a common theme that you can identify as whatever you want but that’s not really what you are.
Religion isn't going away anytime soon, nor is it going to be banned in countries, sadly several religions have abhorrent views on quite a few things that plenty of us might take for granted in our daily lives. However, if most people get on with their daily lives without spreading hate towards others, that it's more a personal thing for them down to a religion they were brought up with and not something they go around expressing to others, is that all that problematic?
Yeah. good point. It's also messed up that those who have to endure racism and islamophobia (people like Mazrouai) are so reluctant to show some solidarity with other persecuted minorities. The lack of empathy is maddening when they have so much in common.
It's not like there aren't muslims and conservative christians that accept that people are gay, plenty of them have family members that are openly gay and accept it while they're obviously not thrilled about it, you're just not going to get all of them aligned on it and you're not going to modernize their religion anytime soon either. People have vastly different views on a lot of things in society, we can't even unite on ending war, poverty, starvation, so not sure why people expect all that much in terms of subjects that are vastly more complicated. There's a Norwegian who's well known, Jørund, who has a hefty financing background, married and has two kids, whom at a later stage in life started identifying as a handicapped woman. It ticked off quite a few boxes for debates, and there was an interesting one where one of the leaders of the handicap society in Norway was debating against Jørund, trying to wrap his head around the bit about someone that's healthy identifying as needing a wheelchair. Obviously it's at the far end of the scale, but quite a few of the debates are, it makes the overall subject, especially taking into account religion, a lot more complicated than an overall much older debate like racism.
I'm sure all these religious footballers live their lives by the exact code their religion demands, right? I mean there's obviously no possible way they could still practice a given religion while also determining that parts of it are incongruous with the modern world. Nobody does that.
I have no idea about how literal the other religions take their texts, but the book of Leviticus has some proper unworkable nonsense in it which is thankfully just ignored. It does however undermine any Christian who refers to the Bible as a source of anything.
That's just a mental illness, no?
just curious if we have any other Muslim players in the United squad? The Turkish keeper?
Amad, Onana.
But that's the issue, some (not all) Black Lives Matter imagery has begun turning into a celebration of black culture and resistance to authority. Not everyone wishes to celebrate black culture in it's entirety and they shouldn't be forced to (this is coming from a black guy).
Take Blue Lives Matter, the message and the intention behind that campaign is actually acceptable. But the message has been warped and turned into a celebration of the Police Force. Obviously some people don't want to celebrate the police force and shouldn't be forced to, but that doesn't mean they wish harm on Police force and most times still appreciate the work they provide.
A few people have raised the imagery of United's red devil clashing with religious views. But the clubs message doesn't currently have a strong link to or promote Devil worship. If that were to change and the club began to lean heavy into that imagery/message e.g. spoof Satanic rituals pre-game or perhaps the Red Devil imagery was adopted by a popular Satanic group, then I think you'd quickly see the same players refusing to engage with that imagery and perhaps choose not to play for the club.
Intended message and received message is completely different and I personally feel the Pride flag probably has some work to do on that front.
There's nothing wrong with either of these pictures. But one is a apparently a message of inclusivity, and the other is a celebration of LGBTQ+ culture. The imagery is the same.
I'm not Muslim, but I think it's understandable how Maz is conflicted.
We don’t know their thoughts on the matter?
When you put it top bins
There's nothing wrong with either of these pictures. But one is a apparently a message of inclusivity, and the other is a celebration of LGBTQ+ culture. The imagery is the same.
I'm not Muslim, but I think it's understandable how Maz is conflicted.
So this is all because the Adidas jacket was actually a crop top? I now see his issue.
i presumed it was going to be more like the pic on the left.
Negative comments about Islam, or how some Muslims don’t accept that being gay is completely normal, is not Islamophobia. Maybe there has been some on here, but the vast majority of posts have simply been calling out how problematic is it in modern society to hold the view that being gay is wrong.
It’s widely accepted that on the whole, society is smarter, has more access to information etc than when the bible or Quran was written. As such, we have updated laws throughout time on what is considered acceptable and not.
Anyone militant about sticking to principles written thousands of years ago is fair game for being called out. There are hugely problematic issues with Islam and Christianity, hopefully as a species we can move past them at some point, the world would be a much better place if we took the positives of religion and dropped the stuff that belongs in the Middle Ages.
How much freedom do you allow though?
I know Muslims who are planning on homeschooling their kids or sending them to Islamic schools just so they don't learn about the "woke gay/trans ideology" being "promoted" in normal British schools.
I've been inside a mosque where, after Eid prayer, the imam went on a rant about how the Muslim youth is being corrupted by this ideology.
Now, according to some people in this thread, it's fine for people to have those beliefs as long as they don't "act" on them, but what does that mean? This is all fine unless they specifically discriminate against a gay person?
Criticism does very little to change these beliefs when people literally think they're sent down from God. How's criticism from a sinner going to bother them?
The issue is that for shaming to work, you need broad, strong buy-in from society. And we might not actually have that for some of these issues.
Yeah, that should be the crux of it. Believe what you want, just don't enforce it onto others, or allow your views to harm others.
You're probably correct there but we're heading in the right direction and require vigilance and action to keep doing so.
You really can't use both sideism here. Or at least you shouldn't.
Ireland is a great example here. We had a very oppressive version of catholicism (in my opinion) and we have made huge progress in the last few decades. It's easy to forget, with same-sex marriage and a gay Taoiseach that homosexuality was illegal pre-1993. It took a lot of work, sacrifice and hardship to get to where we are now.
That's not both sideism. All encompassing inclusivity is a lie and religions are by definition exclusionary. So it makes little sense to on one hand demand inclusivity for a religious person/entity and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that anyone is all inclusive.
Now to make my position abondantly clear, I'm exclusionary with anything that I deem immoral which for example include homophobia, xenophobia, rape, pedophilia and a range of other things. I exclude people based on my own moral compass and I'm absolutely not all inclusive and won't demand it from anyone because it's a dumb concept.
It's quite a claim to make out that both sides are largely made up of bigots though. What makes you say that?
I think that the mobs of professional hounders that live on the social media, I don't think that these people are in any way shape or form reasonable. I don't think that it's reasonable for anyone to demand that someone actively support their position if they don't want to be hounded.
We're back to shooting the messenger, i see. Just like it was Rachel Riley's fault that Greenwood was a rapey cnut.
Biological sex obviously isn't the topic here, but since you brought it up and are interested in nuance and ambiguities, I just wanted to point you to this article, which explains how biological sex isn't binary:
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
As you probably know, Nature is one of the world's leading scientific journals. As the article says, the subject of human sex is much more complex than just binary male/female. Apart from the rare cases of people being born with both or neither sets of genitals, there's a world of variety in people's biological setup.
Heard Rio’s podcast earlier. He asked Joel (a Christian) what he would do, and he said exactly the same as Mark Guehi.
For anyone else who listened I thought Ste got it bang on.
For anyone else who listened I thought Ste got it bang on.
Feck it, seeing as we're already off topic...
I don't think that explodes the "binary sex myth" anywhere near as much as you think it does. It's still just focusing on fringe cases, DSD and the like. It just goes into the various causes of them in a bit more detail than you would usually see. And it's all basically irrelevant to the biological sex of the vast majority of people.
That article says 1% have DSD, if that's the case, it's about exactly as fringe as being trans.
Ok but the fact that some people are trans doesn't invalidate the existence of cisgender people any more than the existence of DSD means we can ignore male and female biological sexes.
for those that don't have time to watch the whole video, it starts past 38th minute..
Who said anything is invalidated though? And 1% of the population isn't tiny, especially compared to a situation where I think the vast majority of people think the exceptions to the clear binary situation account for something more like 0.0000001%.
I think the point of Cheimoon was that naturally, we have people that have atypical developments that blur the lines. It's an important point because in these conversations people tend to believe that it's strictly binary and that anything else is a woke social construct.
We can argue the toss about 1% vs 0.00000001% all day but it doesn't change the fact that if the biological basis of binary holds sex holds true for 99%+ of the population then we should probably accept that yes, biological sex is, to all intents and purposes, binary. Which is not to deny the fact that there really are people for whom this doesn't hold true. But that's no reason to pretend that it exists as a spectrum.
A society seeing a belief as incorrect is one thing. A society not allowing what it sees as an incorrect belief is another.
I may be getting hung up on your wording. If the society wants to be critical of a belief it sees as incorrect, sure. When I see the phrase "I disagree that people should be allowed to believe something" it makes me think that you're advocating for mechanisms that would actually disallow a given belief.
I don't think that's correct. It's entirely possible to practice Christianity , Islam or Judaism and hold the belief that the LGBTQ community should be treated equally in society.