LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football

[Lynty]

I mean, yes, if they're consistent.

Although I suspect lots of religious people aren't consistent at all. They lean into the homophobic teachings of their religion but take the elements which might cause cognitive dissonance about the inclinations of them and their friends (or team mates) a lot less seriously.

Well they'd be hypocrites (which ironically is a sin). You can't disprove of homosexuality without disproving of sex outside of marriage. I think the teachings are quite explicit.

I do think you have some hypocrites, I grew up with a few Muslim lads who were drinking alcohol, dealing drugs and having sex at 17, but there were also just as many Muslim lads who grew up respecting the standards they believed in and waited until marriage.

I think Christian groups depends on denomination, but again - I think it's about consistency in you're view of sin. You can't pick and choose what sins are acceptable.

Muslims are taught not to promote sinful behavior. Refusing to wear the rainbow armband is no different to Kanoute not wearing the 888 sponsorship on his Sevilla shirt.

It could be argued that the rainbow armband is not about promoting homosexuality and more about respecting the rights of homosexual people to not be mistreated. But then an argument could be made the other way that pride movement is about promotion of homosexuality.

Personally I had a rainbow lanyard at my last workplace - mainly because i like the colours, but also because for me, im happy to be seen as someone who promotes non discrimination against anyone. I didn't think to deeply about if it actually is promoting lgbtq... etc.

I think this is a good post.

 

[calodo2003]

The problem here is clearly how little you understand islam. What makes you think that Islam teaches us to be prejudiced against people who don't follow the rules of our religion?

1. The rules only apply to those who choose to be Muslim.
2. The individual has no right to judge anyone else, the only person that can pass judgement, is an actual judge, or God.
3. The judge only passes judgements on things which cause societal harm. If a man was privately drinking beer within his own walls, thats his private sin. If he was doing it on the street, thats a criminal offence (in islam).
4. We all commit sin, each and every one of us.

You're saying that Islam doesn't practice exclusionism?

It would probably be the first hierarchical religion ever to not view non-believers as outsiders then.

You can't be serious here.

 

[The Boy]

The problem here is clearly how little you understand islam. What makes you think that Islam teaches us to be prejudiced against people who don't follow the rules of our religion?

1. The rules only apply to those who choose to be Muslim.
2. The individual has no right to judge anyone else, the only person that can pass judgement, is an actual judge, or God.
3. The judge only passes judgements on things which cause societal harm. If a man was privately drinking beer within his own walls, thats his private sin. If he was doing it on the street, thats a criminal offence (in islam).
4. We all commit sin, each and every one of us.

I think there's a lot of broad strokes beliefs about how religions are interpreted

In both Islam and Christianity for instance, we are meant to treat all others with full honour, respect and kindness. In reality some adherents to Islam and Christianity follow this, others absolutely don't and use their interpretation of their religion to justify their actions against others.

This is the same for any religion. Ultimately, it should not be a criticism of the religion, but a criticism of the personal choice of how to interpret it. That easily gets mixed up and people end up, incorrectly, branding all followers of a religion they only have a surface understanding of, in a certain, often negative way.

 

[golden_blunder]

This is where we need @Sultan

 

[steve zizou]

There are a lot of intolerance, especially in the UK, when it comes religious belief and faith. Some of the language being used here when describing acts of faith are dismissive and disrespectful, showing a real lack of understanding. But I also wouldn't say they were offensive or abusive. Similarly a majority of people who practice faith also disapprove of the LGBTQ as a core principle and are intolerant to the act but very few actually rise to the level of direct offense, discrimination or abuse because all the religious texts also teaches against that. There's a hate the sin not the sinner principle at work.In fact you'll find the worst kinds of abuse suffered by the LGBTQ and other minority and religious groups are often from people who have never stepped in a church, mosque, synagogue, temple or shrine before.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Muslims are taught not to promote sinful behavior. Refusing to wear the rainbow armband is no different to Kanoute not wearing the 888 sponsorship on his Sevilla shirt.

It could be argued that the rainbow armband is not about promoting homosexuality and more about respecting the rights of homosexual people to not be mistreated. But then an argument could be made the other way that pride movement is about promotion of homosexuality.

Personally I had a rainbow lanyard at my last workplace - mainly because i like the colours, but also because for me, im happy to be seen as someone who promotes non discrimination against anyone. I didn't think to deeply about if it actually is promoting lgbtq... etc.

Being gay is not a behaviour , sinful or otherwise. That’s an important point which needs to be grasped by individuals and the religion they follow. Trying to equate people born gay with those who choose to gamble, sleep around, or abuse drugs and alcohol is badly missing the point. The rainbow stuff isn’t about promoting anything, it’s about making people who have no choice about who they are feel a little bit more included. And there’s a huge irony in people who might face exclusion (or even persecution) over stuff they have no choice over (religion, skin colour) failing to show some empathy here.

 

[JPRouve]

You're saying that Islam doesn't practice exclusionism?

It would probably be the first hierarchical religion ever to not view non-believers as outsiders then.

You can't be serious here.

It's kind of strange to assimilate. From memory, it says that no muslim should judge other humans because it's not their place, you are also told to guide people in a righteous path but not impose it. Now where Islam like every other Abrahamic religion is exclusionary is that not following the precepts of Islam is supposed to lead you to Hell but that's something that any mortal can determine.

 

[JPRouve]

I think there's a lot of broad strokes beliefs about how religions are interpreted

In both Islam and Christianity for instance, we are meant to treat all others with full honour, respect and kindness. In reality some adherents to Islam and Christianity follow this, others absolutely don't and use their interpretation of their religion to justify their actions against others.

This is the same for any religion. Ultimately, it should not be a criticism of the religion, but a criticism of the personal choice of how to interpret it. That easily gets mixed up and people end up, incorrectly, branding all followers of a religion they only have a surface understanding of, in a certain, often negative way.

Which as far as I know is described as a sin or blasphemy in all Abrahamic religions.

 

[steve zizou]

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.

And a big majority of them do. They just don't want to be forced to endorse or promote it. In my view, LGBTQ intolerance from religious folk has gotten worse precisely because of this.

 

[Redivy]

I'm a Muslim.

I'd like to know why you think you can't be inclusive of Muslims and the LGBTQ community?

I have a work colleague transitioning from female to male, this colleague now uses "they". This colleague has a female partner.

It has impacted in my engagement with that colleague. I've made an active effort to engage socially with that colleague in the workplace, so that colleague doesn't feel that as an openly Muslim man, i have any negativity towards said colleague.

Also idk if anyone of you have experienced this - but it's insane how over a period of time, this person has gone from looking like a slightly boyish female, to a full on bloke.

Because from my experience, the majority of Muslims are fairly traditional in their beliefs. I’ve witnessed this across any country I’ve been to, whether it was Syria, Australia or the UK. Religion is more than a set of beliefs to the majority of Muslims I’ve encountered, it’s a way of life. And therefore, they have strong beliefs about same-sex marriage.

Now I don’t think they hate the LGBT community, they simply don’t want to participate or advocate in activities or conversations regarding the topic.

Whilst it’s great to see you have adopted a very modern take on things, I don’t believe that is the common thought process.

 

[reelworld]

Being gay is not a behaviour , sinful or otherwise. That’s an important point which needs to be grasped by individuals and the religion they follow. Trying to equate people born gay with those who choose to gamble, sleep around, or abuse drugs and alcohol is badly missing the point. The rainbow stuff isn’t about promoting anything, it’s about making people who have no choice about who they are feel a little bit more included. And there’s a huge irony in people who might face exclusion (or even persecution) over stuff they have no choice over (religion, skin colour) failing to show some empathy here.

I think this is where the message got muddled in my opinion. Many religious people who opposed it think that it was about promoting homosexual acts. Which is I suspect comes from the way rainbow flags are used in gay parades.
The message of inclusion (accept everyone of genders, sexual orientations, race, religions etc in society) can be clearer by these campaigns.

 

[nickm]

And a big majority of them do. They just don't want to be forced to endorse or promote it. In my view, LGBTQ intolerance from religious folk has gotten worse precisely because of this.

Tolerance and endorsement are two different things. I would expect the former from people, but not necessarily the latter. The difficulties start when organisations start to mandate the latter.

 

[Mainoonited]

Because from my experience, the majority of Muslims are fairly traditional in their beliefs. I’ve witnessed this across any country I’ve been to, whether it was Syria, Australia or the UK. Religion is more than a set of beliefs to the majority of Muslims I’ve encountered, it’s a way of life. And therefore, they have strong beliefs about same-sex marriage.

Now I don’t think they hate the LGBT community, they simply don’t want to participate or advocate in activities or conversations regarding the topic.

Whilst it’s great to see you have adopted a very modern take on things, I don’t believe that is the common thought process.

You'd be surprised. My Pakistani cousin works in a warehouse. He has a gay colleague. The other Pakistani guys just banter with him.

Would any of them be open to their own kids came out of the closet? Not at all. They'd probably be devastated.

 

[nickm]

The rainbow stuff isn’t about promoting anything, it’s about making people who have no choice about who they are feel a little bit more included.

I agree and it's good to be an ally, but it shouldn't be required of someone.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think this is where the message got muddled in my opinion. Many religious people who opposed it think that it was about promoting homosexual acts. Which is I suspect comes from the way rainbow flags are used in gay parades.
The message of inclusion (accept everyone of genders, sexual orientations, race, religions etc in society) can be clearer by these campaigns.

I can’t get my head around that distinction, to be honest. How can you talk about being tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientations if the act of expressing that orientation is so problematic to you?

 

[Fridge chutney]

Football has a history of homophobia. Wearing a rainbow jacket, or laces, is about telling the LGBTQ+ community that it is ok to be who they are, and it is meant to promote equality and inclusion for a minority community that continues to face stigma and discrimination.

Not wearing the jacket is a horrible signal to send to that community, from both Mazraoui and from the club.

I feel ashamed of Mazraoui and the players.

 

[Lynty]

I think this is where the message got muddled in my opinion. Many religious people who opposed it think that it was about promoting homosexual acts. Which is I suspect comes from the way rainbow flags are used in gay parades.
The message of inclusion (accept everyone of genders, sexual orientations, race, religions etc in society) can be clearer by these campaigns.

This is exactly it.

The Pride flag message has changed from inclusion to celebration. If it's truly about inclusion and that's what they want the message of the campaign to deliver, then the message needs rebranding to a "Love All" message without the Pride flag. Look at this branding from SPECTRUM who manage the Southampton Hate Crime Network which promote diversity and inclusion for all protected characteristics (including: race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender ident)

The message is clear in that it's only promoting or celebrating inclusion, kindness and love. It's hard to imagine that anyone would refuse to wear or promote this branding.

The fact that the rainbow flag/armband is still a major talking point proves that the current message isn't clear enough.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

This is exactly it.

The Pride flag message has changed from inclusion to celebration. If it's truly about inclusion and that's what they want the message of the campaign to deliver, then the message needs rebranding to a "Love All" message without the Pride flag. Look at this branding from SPECTRUM who manage the Southampton Hate Crime Network which promote diversity and inclusion for all protected characteristics (including: race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender ident)

The message is clear in that it's only promoting or celebrating inclusion, kindness and love. It's hard to imagine that anyone would refuse to wear or promote this branding.

The fact that the rainbow flag/armband is still a major talking point proves that the current message isn't clear enough.

This feels like trying to create a distinction without a difference for some reason. What's the difference between inclusion and celebration to you? It feels like a somewhat disingenuous attempt to tell LGBTQ people something like 'we'll tolerate you but only if your behavior falls in line with boundaries that we deem acceptable to us' because of religion or religiously influenced biases.

 

[Bole Top]

It feels like a somewhat disingenuous attempt to tell LGBTQ people something like 'we'll tolerate you but only if your behavior falls in line with boundaries that we deem acceptable to us' because of religion or religiously influenced biases.

which is different than "support us or get shamed (and relegated)" in what way?

 

[nickm]

This feels like trying to create a distinction without a difference for some reason. What's the difference between inclusion and celebration to you? It feels like a somewhat disingenuous attempt to tell LGBTQ people something like 'we'll tolerate you but only if your behavior falls in line with boundaries that we deem acceptable to us' because of religion or religiously influenced biases.

I sort of think tolerance does not require "a window on people's souls" where celebration maybe does.

Tolerance is about accepting people's differences even if you might not agree (for whatever reason), or prioritise or empathise with to the same extent. Celebration is about agreeing with them.

I think tolerance is a non negotiable in any free society that wants to get along with itself. Celebration is a matter of preference.

 

[Bole Top]

Football has a history of homophobia. Wearing a rainbow jacket, or laces, is about telling the LGBTQ+ community that it is ok to be who they are, and it is meant to promote equality and inclusion for a minority community that continues to face stigma and discrimination.

Not wearing the jacket is a horrible signal to send to that community, from both Mazraoui and from the club.

I feel ashamed of Mazraoui and the players.

ashamed? because they aren't a perfect ally?

 

[Lynty]

This feels like trying to create a distinction without a difference for some reason. What's the difference between inclusion and celebration to you? It feels like a somewhat disingenuous attempt to tell LGBTQ people something like 'we'll tolerate you but only if your behavior falls in line with boundaries that we deem acceptable to us' because of religion or religiously influenced biases.

You can't argue with this message. But it has become a celebration of the police force adopted by a certain demographic of person, and some people do not wish to participate. Yet that doesn't mean anyone wants harm against the police, and often times they still respect a persons decision to dedicate their career to public service.

I know it's not a perfect example, but the basis is still there. We can't dictate what people choose - or choose not - to celebrate or promote. And public perception of messages/imagery needs constant evaluation to see if it's still true to it's intended message.

I personally think it's acceptable for Guehi or Maz to accept people of the LGBTQ+ community, saying like "oh you're gay, that's great, you do you, be happy" but also not wanting to promote that lifestlye. Likewise, I doubt they'd want to promote a lifestyle of similar things they personally disagree with e.g. sex outside marriage.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You can't argue with this message. But it has become a celebration of the police force adopted by a certain demographic of person, and some people do not wish to participate. Yet that doesn't mean anyone wants harm against the police, and often times they still respect a persons decision to dedicate their career to public service.

I know it's not a perfect example, but the basis is still there. We can't dictate what people choose - or choose not - to celebrate or promote. And public perception of messages/imagery needs constant evaluation to see if it's still true to it's intended message.

I personally think it's acceptable for Guehi or Maz to accept people of the LGBTQ+ community, saying like "oh you're gay, that's great, you do you, be happy" but also not wanting to promote that lifestlye. Likewise, I doubt they'd want to promote a lifestyle of similar things they personally disagree with e.g. sex outside marriage.

That’s exactly what they’re being asked to do. That’s the whole purpose of the campaign. To help people of that community feel accepted in the football environment, with all footballers making a show of acceptance together.

I’m not even sure how you “promote a lifestyle” anyway. They’re not being asked to convert anyone into becoming gay!

 

[Wumminator]

It’s shameful that someone wouldn’t wear that armband or the rainbow colours. I wouldn’t want a captain of my club who refused to wear it.

 

[Lynty]

That’s exactly what they’re being asked to do. That’s the whole purpose of the campaign. To help people of that community feel accepted in the football environment, with all footballers making a show of acceptance together.

I’m not even sure how you “promote a lifestyle” anyway. They’re not being asked to convert anyone into becoming gay!

Yet it quite obvious that a lot of people are not getting this message, so there's an issue with the branding.

Spoiler: Excerpt from the Independant - Interview with Bi-sexual player

Judging by some of the reaction on social media and in certain sections of the press, the simple message of the Rainbow Laces initiative – that everyone is welcome to play and watch football – appears to have been lost along the way, and interpreted in some quarters instead as a kind of sinister plot to promote homosexuality and trans identity.

Howlett-Mundle believes the campaign needs less symbolism and a more direct mission statement. He has worked closely with Zander Murray, Scotland’s first openly gay male professional footballer, and agreed when Murray recently said the Premier League needs to “do less rainbows” and “focus more on an anti-homophobia message”.

Article

Zander Murray wants to change the campaign and strip back the rainbows. It's not just me saying this, it should have been done a while ago.


Regarding promoting....I mean, football teams getting paid very good money to 'promote' businesses on the front of their shirts.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yet it quite obvious that a lot of people are not getting this message, so there's an issue with the branding.

Spoiler: Excerpt from the Independant - Interview with Bi-sexual player

Judging by some of the reaction on social media and in certain sections of the press, the simple message of the Rainbow Laces initiative – that everyone is welcome to play and watch football – appears to have been lost along the way, and interpreted in some quarters instead as a kind of sinister plot to promote homosexuality and trans identity.

Howlett-Mundle believes the campaign needs less symbolism and a more direct mission statement. He has worked closely with Zander Murray, Scotland’s first openly gay male professional footballer, and agreed when Murray recently said the Premier League needs to “do less rainbows” and “focus more on an anti-homophobia message”.

Article

Zander Murray wants to change the campaign and strip back the rainbows. It's not just me saying this, it should have been done a while ago.

Reading that article you link it seems to me the main problem here is people implying that footballers wearing rainbow colours is “a kind of sinister plot to promote homosexuality and trans identity.”

There’s been few of them posting in this thread. If everyone would stop doing that then a lot of these “problems” with the campaign go away. Likewise if footballers stopped being homophobic and wore the fecking colours when they’re asked to.

 

[Wumminator]

You absolutely can not take bigots complaining about something and then say it’s “branding”.

 

[Lynty]

Reading that article you link it seems to me the main problem here is people implying that footballers wearing rainbow colours is “a kind of sinister plot to promote homosexuality and trans identity.”

There’s been few of them posting in this thread. If everyone would stop doing that then a lot of these “problems” with the campaign go away. Likewise if footballers stopped being homophobic and wore the fecking colours when they’re asked to.

So if the received message is wrong, make it more clear. Which I think benefits everyone.

 

[Wumminator]

So if the received message is wrong, make it more clear. Which I think benefits everyone.

That’s not how intolerance works.

You wouldn’t look at people who are Islamophobic and blame Muslims.

I don’t blame women for Andrew Tate being a prick.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So if the received message is wrong, make it more clear. Which I think benefits everyone.

The message isn’t wrong. It’s being distorted in bad faith, by people with agendas. And something similar would no doubt happen with whatever revised message they come up with.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

which is different than "support us or get shamed (and relegated)" in what way?

Guehi and Mazraoui are being relegated? Not sure what you're point is here.

I sort of think tolerance does not require "a window on people's souls" where celebration maybe does.

Tolerance is about accepting people's differences even if you might not agree (for whatever reason), or prioritise or empathise with to the same extent. Celebration is about agreeing with them.

I think tolerance is a non negotiable in any free society that wants to get along with itself. Celebration is a matter of preference.

I don't see what the "agreeing with them" bit is supposed to mean. It sounds to me like what I hear religious conservatives say that being LGBTQ is entirely a choice and a "lifestyle" rather than it being how people are biologically wired. Because what else are they not agreeing with? They don't agree with the fact that LGBTQ people are born with a biological and natural attraction to the same sex (among other differences) and they shouldn't be discriminated against as such? To me, Guehi and Mazraoui are absolutely showing intolerance not just a "lack of celebration" (which I still don't see how that view makes any sense logically).

You can't argue with this message. But it has become a celebration of the police force adopted by a certain demographic of person, and some people do not wish to participate. Yet that doesn't mean anyone wants harm against the police, and often times they still respect a persons decision to dedicate their career to public service.

I know it's not a perfect example, but the basis is still there. We can't dictate what people choose - or choose not - to celebrate or promote. And public perception of messages/imagery needs constant evaluation to see if it's still true to it's intended message.

I personally think it's acceptable for Guehi or Maz to accept people of the LGBTQ+ community, saying like "oh you're gay, that's great, you do you, be happy" but also not wanting to promote that lifestlye. Likewise, I doubt they'd want to promote a lifestyle of similar things they personally disagree with e.g. sex outside marriage.

Frankly, I think this is total bullshit. Being LGBTQ isn't a "lifestyle" as I said above. Its biological and natural. So to even frame it that way, as a lifestyle, is an inherently bigoted and prejudicial framing. It packs in unspoken inferences. It's also not analogous to sex outside marriage which is a choice, being LGBTQ is not a choice!

 

[Lynty]

That’s not how intolerance works.

You wouldn’t look at people who are Islamophobic and blame Muslims.

I don’t blame women for Andrew Tate being a prick.

...you can though, a very small extreme group of Muslims. Which I know has no relation to our point (I just like debate)

So, what is your thoughts on the Blue Lives Matter message? Do you not think it's possible to have a good message that is poorly implemented or mistranslated?

The message isn’t wrong. It’s being distorted in bad faith, by people with agendas. And something similar would no doubt happen with whatever revised message they come up with.

The Pride Parade is literally defined as a 'celebration'. It's primary imagery is the Pride flag. The same Pride flag that we are asking devout Christians/Muslims to wear. I agree, the message has been distorted in bad faith, and also in good faith. But it doesn't change the fact the the message has been distorted.

 

[Wumminator]

...you can though, a very small extreme group of Muslims. Which I know has no relation to our point (I just like debate)

So, what is your thoughts on the Blue Lives Matter message? Do you not think it's possible to have a good message that is poorly implemented or mistranslated?



The Pride Parade is literally defined as a 'celebration'. It's primary imagery is the Pride flag. The same Pride flag that we are asking devout Christians/Muslims to wear. I agree, the message has been distorted in bad faith, and also in good faith. But it doesn't change the fact the the message has been distorted.

I don’t agree with the Blue Lives Matter message.

 

[Lynty]

Guehi and Mazraoui are being relegated? Not sure what you're point is here.


I don't see what the "agreeing with them" bit is supposed to mean. It sounds to me like what I hear religious conservatives say that being LGBTQ is entirely a choice and a "lifestyle" rather than it being how people are biologically wired. Because what else are they not agreeing with? They don't agree with the fact that LGBTQ people are born with a biological and natural attraction to the same sex and they shouldn't be discriminated against as such? To me, Guehi and Mazraoui are absolutely showing intolerance not just a "lack of celebration" (which I still don't see how that view makes any sense logically).


Frankly, I think this is total bullshit. Being LGBTQ isn't a "lifestyle" as I said above. Its biological and natural. So to even frame it that way, as a lifestyle, is an inherently bigoted and prejudicial framing. It packs in unspoken inferences. It's also not analogous to sex outside marriage which is a choice, being LGBTQ is not a choice!

I agree. I didn't frame it as a lifestyle, I was using the Blue Lives Matter Flag as an example of how a good message and be received differently.

Regarding sex outside marriage point.... To my knowledge, religious teachings do not say that being LGBTQ is a sin. The emotions and attractions are acceptable. It says the sexual act between two people of the same sex is a sin. I have no real personal opinion on that point to be honest, but thought it worth clarifying.

 

[MancunianAngels]

It's worth pointing that you can always choose not to play for, or support a club, that represents a city which has always tried to be welcoming towards the LGBTQ community.

 

[Fridge chutney]

ashamed? because they aren't a perfect ally?

Perfect ally? They were in no ways allies and Mazraoui has demonstrated himself to be openly homophobic. The rest of the squad demonstrated cowardice.

So yes, I am ashamed.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I agree. I didn't frame it as a lifestyle, I was using the Blue Lives Matter Flag as an example of how a good message and be received differently.

Regarding sex outside marriage point.... To my knowledge, religious teachings do not say that being LGBTQ is a sin. The emotions and attractions are acceptable. It says the sexual act between two people of the same sex is a sin. I have no real personal opinion on that point to be honest, but thought it worth clarifying.

I have a personal opinion there. I've heard that exact point for decades. A lot of religious conservatives don't stop there, they try to convince people that those "emotions and attractions" are not actually natural but demonic thoughts, the devil trying to influence you and so forth. Even without the whole demon/devil business, that view (emotions are okay just don't ever act on it because that's a "sin") is so oppressive and psychologically damaging to people.

I know some religious conservatives will try to claim that them wearing a rainbow jacket for warmups is somehow psychologically damaging to them in exactly the same way that their religious views might be damaging to LGBTQ people therefore tolerance, hypocrisy, whatever. That's bullshit. Not comparable at all.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I have a personal opinion there. I've heard that exact point for decades. A lot of religious conservatives don't stop there, they try to convince people that those "emotions and attractions" are not actually natural but demonic thoughts, the devil trying to influence you and so forth. Even without the whole demon/devil business, that view (emotions are okay just don't ever act on it because that's a "sin") is so oppressive and psychologically damaging to people.

I know some religious conservatives will try to claim that them wearing a rainbow jacket for warmups is somehow psychologically damaging to them in exactly the same way that their religious views might be damaging to LGBTQ people therefore tolerance, hypocrisy, whatever. That's bullshit. Not comparable at all.

Good post. The attempt to separate emotions, thoughts and actions from the actual identity of someone who isn’t straight actually comes across as quite sinister. Likewise the way it keeps being compared with gambling. “We feel compassion for you and your struggles and would support you in your efforts to try not to act on this terrible affliction but we obviously wouldn’t want to promote it”

 

[kaku06]

I'm kinky and straight. Now what?

What do you mean? So you get to be kinky and can reproduce? You got the best deal.

 

[Roane]

For what it's worth.

A lot of people have raised a lot of different posts. Rather than responding individually I've put together this to try and address some of them. This isn't to impose my view. Just for clarification as I understood when I studied Islam.

Not promoting a cause is not seen as the same as intolerance, or in this case homophobia. There is the concept of Justice (in simple terms. Terms like racist or misogynistic or homophobic are not used. It's a catch all) that exists.

In this case, Basically you can't look down on a person, deny a person employment, isolate them, bully/harass them or call them names and/or beat them up because they happen to be gay. Which is what would fall into the notion/meaning of homophobia. Anybody doing the above is homophobic or is seen as injustice from a religious (Islam) perspective.

Promoting something that goes against the teachings is also not allowed. Both the above and this would be a personal sin and you are accountable as an individual.

The notion of sinning Muslims, examples earlier about drinking, drug dealing etc. yes these exist and are personal sins. However this is not something that takes you outside the fold of Islam. Promoting would.

In simple terms in Islam there is the concept of making the halal haram and the haram halal. (Halal being permitted and haram being not).

So to drink alcohol does not do any of this. You are basically breaking a "commandment" and it's on you. In effect you are a bad Muslim. To say drinking is allowed and promoting it is making the not permitted into permitted and that makes you non Muslim.

An example would be the concept of not rebelling against a Caliph/ruler who sins (maybe drinks alcohol for example) but rules by Islam. We can't judge him for his private actions. However if he makes alcohol halal then he has to be removed and rebelled against.

Another example maybe a Muslim going to an off license to buy milk and bread. If this off license is owned by a non Muslim then there is no issue. As we don't judge the non Muslim. However it isn't permitted (is haram) to buy even milk and bread off a Muslim who owns an off license.

There is so much I can write, and I'm prone to going on and digressing so apologies for that. But put simply the concept of not doing injustice to an individual means you can abstain from promoting a concept without hating the individual/s.

There is an Imam who gives sermons against (for want of a better word) homosexuality. In the face of it this would be homophobic right? However he has two people living in his house next to a mosque currently because they were homeless and he took them in. One is an openly gay man. So is he homophobic?