LGBT issues in Football

[Vapor trail]

Don't see anything wrong with his stance. He hasn't said anything detrimental or signified remarks that are condemnatory in nature

What I don't understand is criticising him when he's made no damning statement against LGBT but then ridiculing / being derogatory against religion which is hypocrisy at its finest. I find it weird on this forum it's almost a loophole to be prejudice but everything's buttered up because the nature of a forum is conversation orientated.

 

[calodo2003]

Oh dear.

e - oh dear.

 

[duffer]

I get what you're saying, that it seems a bit absolutist - either you're fully on board with us or you're part of the problem. Should he be forced to wear the armband? Of course not. His wider comments seem to imply that he feels doing so would endorse homosexuality, which is something he is banned from doing. That's his right.

He's fine endorsing gambling every week though (also on his shirt sleeve, funnily enough), something also against the religious belief he claims to hold so dear.

I just don't understand how people can pick and chose which of the rules they bother with and yet still proclaim "it's against my religion" whilst expecting anyone to take them seriously.

 

[Red the Bear]

Some interesting takes in this thread to say the least.

 

[2 man midfield]

He's fine endorsing gambling every week though (also on his shirt sleeve, funnily enough), something also against the religious belief he claims to hold so dear.

I just don't understand how people can pick and chose which of the rules they bother with and yet still proclaim "it's against my religion" whilst expecting anyone to take them seriously.

I remember the same thing being pointed out with Idrissa Gueye. The hypocrisy is definitely something he should be called out on, among other things.

 

[Maagge]

Don't see anything wrong with his stance. He hasn't said anything detrimental or signified remarks that are condemnatory in nature

What I don't understand is criticising him when he's made no damning statement against LGBT but then ridiculing / being derogatory against religion which is hypocrisy at its finest. I find it weird on this forum it's almost a loophole to be prejudice but everything's buttered up because the nature of a forum is conversation orientated.

Religion is made up and people choose to follow one. You don't choose to be LGBTQ+.

 

[Vapor trail]

Religion is made up and people choose to follow one. You don't choose to be LGBTQ+.

You have to have a belief to believe in religion and you have to have a belief to believe that religion doesn't exist.

The one commonality between people who are atheist, religious and agnostic is that they all have a belief. If you don't believe in religion that's also a choice. These things however still don't justify prejudice which is essentially what your doing.

 

[arthurka]

99.99999% of people will justify their own hypocrisy if the amount is big enough. Sadly.

Isn't Beckham on the take from the Qatar WC ? He was at least one of the first to speak up on this matter some 20 years ago before it got hip and cool to do so. Not sure he needs the cash but selling your soul is never cheap but again never really worth it.

 

[criticalanalysis]

What an absolute cnut.

Religion, what’s the point?

At least tag them correctly @TheReligion

 

[sullydnl]

Don't see anything wrong with his stance. He hasn't said anything detrimental or signified remarks that are condemnatory in nature

What I don't understand is criticising him when he's made no damning statement against LGBT but then ridiculing / being derogatory against religion which is hypocrisy at its finest. I find it weird on this forum it's almost a loophole to be prejudice but everything's buttered up because the nature of a forum is conversation orientated.

He is saying he feels unable to wear the armband due to his religious beliefs. I struggle to see what religious beliefs he could have that would preclude him from showing that benign, passive support for LGBT people without those beliefs also being inherently homophobic.

And if he chooses to adopt religious beliefs that are homophobic, why wouldn't we criticise both him and his religion on that basis? He doesn't need to say anything condemnatory about LGBT people beyond that, the fact that he feels he should not wear the armband is enough to warrant criticism in itself.

 

[Vapor trail]

He is saying he feels unable to wear the armband due to his religious beliefs. I struggle to see what religious beliefs he could have that would preclude him from showing that benign, passive support for LGBT people without those beliefs also being inherently homophobic.

And if he chooses to adopt religious beliefs that are homophobic, why wouldn't we criticise both him and his religion on that basis? He doesn't need to say anything condemnatory about LGBT people beyond that, the fact that he feels he should not wear the armband is enough to warrant criticism in itself.

That's quite an extremist view if a religion has an alternate view with the notion of someone being gay does it automatically qualify homophobia ? Phobia is a strong word that centers around the definition of fear. Homophobia is a word that is being watered down and generalised to fit the description of anything that can be adversely seen as a disagreement in principle.

I could for instance disagree with the doctrinal views of the Buddhist / Muslim religion but that doesn't qualify me as being Islamaphobic. Not wearing a piece of material that is in representation of LGBT for religious reasons is not even close to homophobia. Now if the said player begins to ridicule the cause and use assertive language where the point that is conveyed is offensive that is justifiable of criticism.

 

[Santoryo]

As long as those beliefs do not lead to actual detrimental actions against gay people, then the actual nature of those beliefs don't interest me (and I get why people may feel different).

He's chosen not to wear a headband. For a stupid reason. And that's that. If he also exclaimed support for ostracizing gay people then it would be a different story.

I agree with this. As long as he doesn't actively try to incite fire of discrimination or such things then he's free to chose what he'd like to do whether the reason sit well with some people or not.

Acceptance for people's choices should be expected from everybody. Just because one feels they're supporting the right cause doesn't exempt them from letting other people make their own choices.

The man doesn't want to wear the armband for reasons which might sound stupid to others, let him be. He isn't harming anyone physically, emotionally or mentally which is ultimately what matters.

 

[Pascal Quiff]

If you choose to follow religious beliefs that preclude you from even making an extremely benign gesture of support for LGBT people then that reflects poorly on both you and those religious beliefs.

Claiming your homophobia is religion-led homophobia isn't a get out of jail free card. Nor does surrounding your statement with empty words of respect change the fact that you clearly have an issue with LGBT people.

I don't think he has an issue as such with LGBT people. He's come out and said he can't fully support the message due to something he strongly believes in, that doesnt mean he should be hung out to dry over it.

You can't force someone to think a certain way, just because it's common concensus. It's benign to you and I but obviously matters a great deal to him, enough for him to make a statement that will undoubtedly be scrutinised!

 

[golden_blunder]

I thought religion teaches you to turn the other cheek

 

[golden_blunder]

I agree with this. As long as he doesn't actively try to incite fire of discrimination or such things then he's free to chose what he'd like to do whether the reason sit well with some people or not.

Acceptance for people's choices should be expected from everybody. Just because one feels they're supporting the right cause doesn't exempt them from letting other people make their own choices.

The man doesn't want to wear the armband for reasons which might sound stupid to others, let him be. He isn't harming anyone physically, emotionally or mentally which is ultimately what matters.

Unless of course 1 or 2 if his colleagues are gay and wish they had their captains support

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Will Iran and Qatar wear these armbands?

 

[Eleven.]

If you can’t see why his refusal to wear the armband is wrong then you’re part of the problem.

Think back to when ‘kick it out’ was the big push from the FA/UEFA etc - which is no different to this campaign, but replacing racism with LGBTQ acceptance. There’d have been murder if a player refused to support it.

Hiding behind religion whilst endorsing betting companies etc is a cowardly way of saying you don’t agree with LGBTQ equality. The epitome of religious hypocrisy and picking and choosing what suits.

 

[sullydnl]

That's quite an extremist view if a religion has an alternate view with the notion of someone being gay does it automatically qualify homophobia ? Phobia is a strong word that centers around the definition of fear. Homophobia is a word that is being watered down and generalised to fit the description of anything that can be adversely seen as a disagreement in principle.

I could for instance disagree with the doctrinal views of the Buddhist / Muslim religion but that doesn't qualify me as being Islamaphobic. Not wearing a piece of material that is in representation of LGBT for religious reasons is not even close to homophobia. Now if the said player begins to ridicule the cause and use assertive language where the point that is conveyed is offensive that is justifiable of criticism.

Homophobia encompasses the irrational fear of, hatred of, dislike of, discomfort with, aversion to and prejudice against homosexual people or homosexual orientation.

If you don't believe gay people's sexuality carries as much merit (or lack therefor) and is as valid a form of sexuality as heterosexuality, that is by definition a homophobic position, as it indicates that particular sexuality is a lesser or less worthy form of sexuality. If the religion you choose to believe in's "alternate view" is that homosexuality is some sort of sin in a way that heterosexuality isn't, your religion is homophobic.

It isn't an extremist POV to hold religious views to the same standard as secular views. Nor is it "watering down" the definition of homophobia to look beyond an overly simplified breakdown of the word's etymology when assessing it's meaning. That isn't how words work.

Your point about disagreeing with the doctrinal views of the Buddhist/Muslim religion has zero applicability, because homosexuality isn't something people choose to follow, or something with doctrinal beliefs you can disagree with. You can't "disagree with" homosexuality.

I don't think he has an issue as such with LGBT people. He's come out and said he can't fully support the message due to something he strongly believes in, that doesnt mean he should be hung out to dry over it.

You can't force someone to think a certain way, just because it's common concensus. It's benign to you and I but obviously matters a great deal to him, enough for him to make a statement that will undoubtedly be scrutinised!

I'm not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but It certainly means he should be roundly criticised. You can't force someone to think a certain way, but you are absolutely entitled to pilllory and condemn their line of thought. You don't get a pass just because you "feel strongly".

 

[Cassidy]

If you can’t see why his refusal to wear the armband is wrong then you’re part of the problem.

Think back to when ‘kick it out’ was the big push from the FA/UEFA etc - which is no different to this campaign, but replacing racism with LGBTQ acceptance. There’d have been murder if a player refused to support it.

Hiding behind religion whilst endorsing betting companies etc is a cowardly way of saying you don’t agree with LGBTQ equality. The epitome of religious hypocrisy and picking and choosing what suits.

He doesn’t have a choice what company his club chooses to have as sponsors.

I don’t agree with his choice, but I think he has a right to choose personally.

Actually I think if he has no choice thats problematic.

Also anyone can sympaphise and respect a course without wanting to endorse it. No one should forced to endorse a course.

Saying that he should have saved himself the agro and just worn the armband.

And we already know the world has a massive issue with religion and also that society endorses this

 

[BD]

He doesn’t have a choice what company his club chooses to have as sponsors.

I don’t agree with his choice, but I think he has a right to choose personally.

Actually I think if he has no choice thats problematic.

Also anyone can sympaphise and respect a course without wanting to endorse it. No one should forced to endorse a course.

Saying that he should have saved himself the agro and just worn the armband.

And we already know the world has a massive issue with religion and also that society endorses this

Of course he has a right to choose, and we have a right to call him (or at least his actions) homophobic and to criticise him for it.

 

[Himannv]

Think back to when ‘kick it out’ was the big push from the FA/UEFA etc - which is no different to this campaign, but replacing racism with LGBTQ acceptance. There’d have been murder if a player refused to support it.

Players did refuse to support Kick it Out. Rio Ferdinand was the most prominent of those and he didn't support it because he didn't agree with the leniency the FA showed Terry when he racially abused his brother. Lots of others boycotted it as well for similar reasons.

 

[SilentWitness]

If your religion doesn't support something and you decide to back your religion and continue to support that as fully while actively making a stand to stop supporting the other thing, how can you come out and say you still support that other thing?

It's possible to be religious and be supportive of LGBT.

 

[duffer]

He doesn’t have a choice what company his club chooses to have as sponsors.

He has a choice on what he allows on the shirts he wears though.

Plenty of players have refused to promote gambling on their shirts before, it's as easy as a bit of masking tape. He'd have to actually have to give a shit to do that though.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Forcing a homophobe to partake in self-congratulatory rainbow marketing doesn't really do anything to fix the problem of LGBTQ bigotry, considering that football itself isn't really doing much to combat it either beyond making their emblems rainbow coloured for a bit. This individual is still going to be prejudice against LGBTQ whether he wears it or not. I don't think it benefits anybody to force it upon those who don't want to do it, as much as I'd like to see a world where everyone wants to promote the equality of marginalised people. Well, the ideal scenario would be for them to not be marginalised at all, obviously.

His excuse is garbage though, and the scrutiny he will receive for it is justified. It's well and good for him to say he respects everybody, but his beliefs are fully enabling the behaviour of people that don't. You can't respect everyone whilst aligning with an institution and a belief system that doesn't.

 

[RyRy11]

Boils down to whether you respect and support people's sexuality if they are not straight. If you don't, regardless of the reason, you are homophobic. It's as easy as that. A rainbow armband is such a throwaway gesture too that I wouldn't be surprised if there were many examples of people who don't support the LGBTQIA+ community but carry on wearing it to avoid the social backlash. Speaking out about it shows they want to be known as homophobic and people are allowed to voice their dislike of that.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He doesn’t have a choice what company his club chooses to have as sponsors.

I don’t agree with his choice, but I think he has a right to choose personally.

Actually I think if he has no choice thats problematic.

Also anyone can sympaphise and respect a course without wanting to endorse it. No one should forced to endorse a course.

Saying that he should have saved himself the agro and just worn the armband.

And we already know the world has a massive issue with religion and also that society endorses this

Sexuality is a course now? Where do I sign up?

 

[Pascal Quiff]

Homophobia encompasses the irrational fear of, hatred of, dislike of, discomfort with, aversion to and prejudice against homosexual people or homosexual orientation.

If you don't believe gay people's sexuality carries as much merit (or lack therefor) and is as valid a form of sexuality as heterosexuality, that is by definition a homophobic position, as it indicates that particular sexuality is a lesser or less worthy form of sexuality. If the religion you choose to believe in's "alternate view" is that homosexuality is some sort of sin in a way that heterosexuality isn't, your religion is homophobic.

It isn't an extremist POV to hold religious views to the same standard as secular views. Nor is it "watering down" the definition of homophobia to look beyond an overly simplified breakdown of the word's etymology when assessing it's meaning. That isn't how words work.

Your point about disagreeing with the doctrinal views of the Buddhist/Muslim religion has zero applicability, because homosexuality isn't something people choose to follow, or something with doctrinal beliefs you can disagree with. You can't "disagree with" homosexuality.



I'm not sure what you mean by "hung out to dry" but It certainly means he should be roundly criticised. You can't force someone to think a certain way, but you are absolutely entitled to pilllory and condemn their line of thought. You don't get a pass just because you "feel strongly".

But why should he be criticised? I'm not trying to be contrary here and absolutely have no dog in this fight, I just don't see the issue with his tweets as he's not condemning the LGBT community and actually says that he respects everyone's right to choose, just as we should respect his right to hold religious beliefs and live his life by them if he so chooses.

I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of them, but would the LGBT community want someone wearing the armband if they knew that person didn't fully support it? How would they now feel if he u-turned on his stance and wore it due to the backlash?

 

[Synco]

Homophobia encompasses the irrational fear of, hatred of, dislike of, discomfort with, aversion to and prejudice against homosexual people or homosexual orientation.

If you don't believe gay people's sexuality carries as much merit (or lack therefor) and is as valid a form of sexuality as heterosexuality, that is by definition a homophobic position, as it indicates that particular sexuality is a lesser or less worthy form of sexuality. If the religion you choose to believe in's "alternate view" is that homosexuality is some sort of sin in a way that heterosexuality isn't, your religion is homophobic.

Yes, and it often goes beyond that, homosexuality being painted as harmful and dangerous (for society, our kids' wellbeing/safety, etc). The term "homophobia" is really apt there in the literal sense.

It isn't an extremist POV to hold religious views to the same standard as secular views.

Exactly. In the end, religious views are just worldviews. They should be treated like other traditions as well.

 

[adexkola]

Think back to when ‘kick it out’ was the big push from the FA/UEFA etc - which is no different to this campaign, but replacing racism with LGBTQ acceptance. There’d have been murder if a player refused to support it.

But it's been established by some in this thread that there were valid reasons for not taking the knee, reasons which somehow don't apply here.

 

[SilentWitness]

But why should he be criticised? I'm not trying to be contrary here and absolutely have no dog in this fight, I just don't see the issue with his tweets as he's not condemning the LGBT community and actually says that he respects everyone's right to choose, just as we should respect his right to hold religious beliefs and live his life by them if he so chooses.

I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of them, but would the LGBT community want someone wearing the armband if they knew that person didn't fully support it? How would they now feel if he u-turned on his stance and wore it due to the backlash?

His religion condemns the LGBT community. By reversing your support for the LGBT community and extending your support for the religion, how are you not actively participating in that condemnation?

 

[duffer]

But it's been established by some in this thread that there were valid reasons for not taking the knee, reasons which somehow don't apply here.

Who didn't take the knee for "religious reasons"? I genuinely don't know.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But it's been established by some in this thread that there were valid reasons for not taking the knee, reasons which somehow don't apply here.

Who didn't take the knee for "religious reasons"? I genuinely don't know.

The only valid reasons came from black footballers, as far as I can remember. Zaha is the one that first comes to mind.

Be a very different discussion if a gay footballer decided he didn’t want to wear the pride colours, obviously.

 

[duffer]

The only valid reasons came from black footballers, as far as I can remember. Zaha is the one that first comes to mind.

Be a very different discussion if a gay footballer decided he didn’t want to wear the pride colours, obviously.

Indeed. I don't remember anyone refusing to take the knee for the reasons this guy is refusing to wear an armband. I'm sure they did though, @adexkola isn't a liar and will let us know who.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

The only valid reasons came from black footballers, as far as I can remember. Zaha is the one that first comes to mind.

Be a very different discussion if a gay footballer decided he didn’t want to wear the pride colours, obviously.

Thought Zaha did it because he thought taking the knee was not being effective enough, not on religious grounds.

 

[Conor]

But it's been established by some in this thread that there were valid reasons for not taking the knee, reasons which somehow don't apply here.

In the context of his religious beliefs, not wearing the armband is valid to him. In the context of judging his action to not wear the armband, calling him a homophobe is valid. It's not very complicated.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Thought Zaha did it because he thought taking the knee was not being effective enough, not on religious grounds.

Yes. But it's obviously a completely different scenario when the footballer belongs to a group directly affected by the issue being highlighted.

 

[WeePat]

But it's been established by some in this thread that there were valid reasons for not taking the knee, reasons which somehow don't apply here.

Yeah but if the reasons for not taking the knee were similar to this guy here - I'm part of a racist community that think being black (or insert any other race) is wrong/immoral - then that person would be roundly criticised too. I could be wrong but I genuinely do not think a player would be vilified if they said they don't want to wear the rainbow armband because they think it's nothing more than a symbolic gesture that football can hide behind whilst doing nothing to actually combat the issues the LBGTQ+ community face everyday and that they don't want to participate in these empty gestures when the sport could/should be doing more.

The only valid reasons came from black footballers, as far as I can remember. Zaha is the one that first comes to mind.

Be a very different discussion if a gay footballer decided he didn’t want to wear the pride colours, obviously.

[Irrelevant point] didn't really get any criticism but he also didn't put out a statement. He just stopped taking the knee one day and when he was asked about it, he said I'd rather stand and point to the no room for racism badge on the sleeve.

 

[duffer]

Thought Zaha did it because he thought taking the knee was not being effective enough, not on religious grounds.

You're correct. Zaha said it wasn't enough. Nothing about religion whatsoever.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Yes. But it's obviously a completely different scenario when the footballer belongs to a group directly affected by the issue being highlighted.

Well yes of course. To be fair all taking does is highlight the issue, it isn't fixing it.

 

[Giggsyking]

Will Iran and Qatar wear these armbands?

They will wear palistine flags.