Foreign secretary advice to LGBT fans.... Be respectful

[kouroux]

Doesn't appear like it, but they shouldn't need the backing of anyone if they care about the message or protest. Clearly all the Germans do care, which is good to see.

Impossible to say with certainty that all of them care tbh.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I think thiis puts the whataboutery in context.

"You know what’s most shocking about the massacre in Colorado Springs? The fact that it felt so inevitable. Over the past year there has been an escalation in dangerously dehumanising anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. The idea that LGBTQ+ people are “groomers” and paedophiles has become a mainstream conservative talking point pushed by everyone from Fox News to Republican politicians. Christina Pushaw, the press secretary for the Florida governor Ron DeSantis, for example, said that a new law preventing Florida schools from teaching kids about LGBTQ+ people should be called the “the anti-grooming bill”. If you’re against it, she tweeted, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of four- to eight-year-old children”. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the average number of tweets each day using slurs such as “groomer” and “paedophile” in relation to LGBTQ+ people increased by 406% in the month after the Florida bill was passed.


The dehumanising rhetoric has been accompanied by growing violence. The Proud Boys, a far-right group, have been disrupting Drag Queen Story Hour events (in which performers read books to children) across the US, often turning up with guns. In September Boston children’s hospital received bomb threats after sustained far-right harassment sparked by the hospital’s work with transgender youths. The tragedy at Club Q didn’t happen in a vacuum."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rous-escalation-in-hateful-anti-lgbt-rhetoric

The rhetoric is more than half a century out of date.

...is what we would've said a few years ago.

Now? No, it ain't. It's not some anachronistic outlier we can laugh at, safe in the knowledge that society is actually progressing and that views like these are doomed to full extinction before long.

We seem to be regressing. It's quite scary, actually.

 

[moses]

The rhetoric is more than half a century out of date.

...is what we would've said a few years ago.

Now? No, it ain't. It's not some anachronistic outlier we can laugh at, safe in the knowledge that society is actually progressing and that views like these are doomed to full extinction before long.

We seem to be regressing. It's quite scary, actually.

Yep. Here in Ireland we never had a fascist manifestation, despite the best efforts of some wankers in the 1930s, but it's growing now, its very activist and its co-opting many of the seemingly meaningless culture wars. They have no set ideology beyond self serving so change opinions easily. They would champion respect for Qatar and Islam in view of their policies on homophobia but hammer them as monsters in a slightly different conversation.

It's grassroots at the moment and only have 1.2% of the vote but post trump and anti vax that's estimated to treble, and that's a voice. Worrying.

 

[TheReligion]

Excellent from Germany. Well done!

 

[Marwood]

When did I say that?

In the midst of me talking about the pundits motivation to be there you brought the quite abstract possibility of hypothetical replacement pundits not saying anything.

Yeah, only those with 100% proven, unbiased, altruistic motives should be listened to. Better to be completely silent on the issues than be even 1% hypocritical or nuanced.

So basically no one.

That's the way forward.

No you've gone to an extreme now. I'm not saying you have to be 100% pure to have an opinion.

But if you're criticising players for protesting without sacrifice I think its a bit much given they themselves had made zero sacrifice.

They're all extremely rich people who couldn't bring themselves to say no to one gig. They could hace done so easily but they all want that payday.

Not at all. They’re being paid by BBC / ITV to be there and are being paid to COMMENT on what’s going on - and that’s what they’re doing.

Also, if you think commentators aren’t being pressured / paid off to be pro qatar you’re mental. Just watch talksport or bein’s utterly pathetic ‘it’s all great here’ nonsense - Simon Jordan and Souness and co were basically doing a properganda job for it.

Likewise when Keane spoke simple truths you could see the cowards around him LITERALLY squirming, and at the end after the anchor wrapped the piece, Souness interrupted her to simply add ‘hey, our country’s not been great has it’ - which is now the rallying cry of the qatar apologist.

The ONLY possible point of having this World Cup in a country completely unsuitable for it - where we’ve moved our own fecking football calendar around in order to do so (!!!) - was in order to engage and shed light on an unprogressive and repressive regime. There is NO other point. Even Neville has repeatedly said as much.

If everyone just goes there and suddenly bows to their censorship and bullying it renders the whole thing utterly pointless.

qatar has nothing to offer football, and isn’t a footballing country. We (the footballing World) shouldnt have gone there to simply cow tow like obedient subjects.

That goes for players and media.

I'd not even mentioned pro Qatar pundits but good to know I'm mental about it anyway.

I think you've got a very naive take on all this.

You think the only point of the world cup being in Qatar is to help shed light on human rights issues? You think that's why the blokes at Fifa awarded it to them? Not the massive bribes? Are you sure you're not mental?

You think anything Roy Keane or Ian Wright say will make a difference? It's too late. Qatar have already been rewarded. Their actions have been condoned. The pundits have took the money off the back of it. A few nice words now is neither here nor there. That's just the game they have to play for a few weeks and then they're off with I'm guessing tens of thousands in their back pocket.

 

[Duafc]

In the midst of me talking about the pundits motivation to be there you brought the quite abstract possibility of hypothetical replacement pundits not saying anything.



No you've gone to an extreme now. I'm not saying you have to be 100% pure to have an opinion.

But if you're criticising players for protesting without sacrifice I think its a bit much given they themselves had made zero sacrifice.

They're all extremely rich people who couldn't bring themselves to say no to one gig. They could hace done so easily but they all want that payday.



I'd not even mentioned pro Qatar pundits but good to know I'm mental about it anyway.

I think you've got a very naive take on all this.

You think the only point of the world cup being in Qatar is to help shed light on human rights issues? You think that's why the blokes at Fifa awarded it to them? Not the massive bribes? Are you sure you're not mental?

You think anything Roy Keane or Ian Wright say will make a difference? It's too late. Qatar have already been rewarded. Their actions have been condoned. The pundits have took the money off the back of it. A few nice words now is neither here nor there. That's just the game they have to play for a few weeks and then they're off with I'm guessing tens of thousands in their back pocket.

Whilst the points are fair I find this kind of chopping down of any comment or positive show of solidarity so base.

It's always - they should do more, they are hypocrites, it wont make a difference, why bother, as if that will change anything, sure they don't really give a feck, sure they got paid.. But but but followed by negative negative negative.

Ultimately it's totally apathetic. I'd rather recognise and promote the small positives that come along with the total shit sandwich we're being served rather than try and always slag off anyone celebrating minor wins and constantly berating those offering some small contribution to the efforts to educate and change for not being whiter than white within it all.

Of course there are ulterior motives, of course they could do much much more however they haven't and lots of others aren't even doing that much. Any small effort is cumulative and a damn side better than silence or indeed very outward support for these instances of discrimination and human rights failures.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yeah, Germany should be applauded for at least doing something to stand up to FIFA here.

Compare their response to Southgate's pathetic statement:

I do understand FIFA's situation in that you can set a precedent and it's difficult where to draw the line.

There's nothing to "understand" about FIFA here. They're on the wrong side of history, they should be told that in no uncertain terms.

We had to focus on the football, we can't be involved in that now.

This goes beyond football. You can't "focus on the football" if you genuinely believe that this is an important issue.

People know who we stand for, people know this group of players. We took a knee as we felt we could make a difference. There are other things where we can't make a difference, so we have to channel our energy in other directions.

Yeah, people hopefully know very well what you stand for now. What you have achieved here is to make people realize precisely what it means that you "took the knee": nothing. It means absolutely nothing coming from you.

 

[Marwood]

Whilst the points are fair I find this kind of chopping down of any comment or positive show of solidarity so base.

It's always - they should do more, they are hypocrites, it wont make a difference, why bother, as if that will change anything, sure they don't really give a feck, sure they got paid.. But but but followed by negative negative negative.

Ultimately it's totally apathetic. I'd rather recognise and promote the small positives that come along with the total shit sandwich we're being served rather than try and always slag off anyone celebrating minor wins and constantly berating those offering some small contribution to the efforts to educate and change for not being whiter than white within it all.

Of course there are ulterior motives, of course they could do much much more however they haven't and lots of others aren't even doing that much. Any small effort is cumulative and a damn side better than silence or indeed very outward support for these instances of discrimination and human rights failures.

I've probably not explained myself well enough.

Ian Wright and Roy Keane were criticising footballers and football associations for not making a sacrifice. They're doing the very thing you're talking about above. Saying more should be done etc.

Whilst both sat in Qatar for nothing more than a payday. You see massive hypocrisy yes?

Roy Keane is saying it shouldn't be in Qatar, whilst in Qatar making serious cash off the back of it.

You think their words will have any kind of impact then ok. I think you're wrong obviously. Any kind of impact they could have had ended ages ago.

All talk now is pretty much scripted. I'm sure many meetings have been held by broadcasters as to how the deal with it. They know they can't say nothing. Would be terrible PR inviting all sorts of criticism.

So it will have been discussed at length what they're going to say on air. How do they appear to be concerned citizens whilst still getting to go and earn that money.

 

[moses]

But if you're criticising players for protesting without sacrifice I think its a bit much given they themselves had made zero sacrifice.

I have protested all my life, mostly without sacrifice. I have been detained by the police, other days others were. I was frequently prepared for that but if it didn't happen it didn't negate my protest.

Its the intent and belief that's important and the willingness to sacrifice. I think the reactions of the others showed Roy was out on a limb a little. Roy has shown us he's not afraid to speak his mind.


And he's not Che Guevara but I'm glad it's him there speaking up and not someone else saying feck all. In the moment he spoke up and while Id prefer he spent some of his football money creating a movement and organising a huge boycott, I'm still glad he spoke up. He said they should take a yellow card and Id say he probably might have.

His dissent is not huge but he spoke up.

 

[Boavista]

You think anything Roy Keane or Ian Wright say will make a difference? It's too late. Qatar have already been rewarded. Their actions have been condoned. The pundits have took the money off the back of it. A few nice words now is neither here nor there. That's just the game they have to play for a few weeks and then they're off with I'm guessing tens of thousands in their back pocket.

The damage might be done, but what Keane, Wright or other pundits discuss during the world cup helps shape public opinion back home. It might not make a difference for Qatar, but it can make a difference in other ways. They're not journalists, but for better or worse for the duration of the world cup you could argue they're the public face of the media, so it's still an important job to talk about these topics even if they themselves don't sacrifice anything by being there or putting pressure on the FA and FIFA.

 

[moses]

The damage might be done, but what Keane, Wright or other pundits discuss during the world cup helps shape public opinion back home. It might not make a difference for Qatar, but it can make a difference in other ways. They're not journalists, but for better or worse for the duration of the world cup you could argue they're the public face of the media, so it's still an important job to talk about these topics even if they themselves don't sacrifice anything by being there or putting pressure on the FA and FIFA.

Yes, well articulated.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Roy Keane is saying it shouldn't be in Qatar, whilst in Qatar making serious cash off the back of it.

Do you think ITV shouldn't be covering the World Cup at all?

Maybe they shouldn't - that would be one way to go about it.

But given that they are covering it, and given that they do need pundits, isn't it better that Keane and Wright are being explicitly critical about certain aspects of the tournament - rather than, say, just ignoring those aspects and "focusing on the football"?

Isn't it more impactful that Roy Keane and Ian Wright make statements about this in Qatar, in real time, as pundits for a major network, rather than...them not doing it?

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I think you've got a very naive take on all this.

You think the only point of the world cup being in Qatar is to help shed light on human rights issues? You think that's why the blokes at Fifa awarded it to them? Not the massive bribes? Are you sure you're not mental?

You think anything Roy Keane or Ian Wright say will make a difference? It's too late. Qatar have already been rewarded. Their actions have been condoned. The pundits have took the money off the back of it. A few nice words now is neither here nor there. That's just the game they have to play for a few weeks and then they're off with I'm guessing tens of thousands in their back pocket.

Think you’ve misunderstood my stance slightly here, or not really read my post properly.

When I say ‘the reason qatar was given the World Cup was to progress them and shine light’ OBVIOUSLY I know that the actual reason is because fifa and qatar are both repulsive corrupt entities! Everyone knows that.

I’m talking about the reason that’s been accepted in the wider football World in order to make sense of such a laughable host being chosen.

I’m talking about what was said by Neville BEFORE going there.

And regarding your silly point about Keano or Wrighty ‘not changing anything by speaking the truth’, what’s your problem with that? Should people only speak when they’re going to change something?

What is you talking in here going to change?

Who said Keane was or wasn’t going to change anything by telling the truth?

Would you prefer he shut up? If so, why? Please be clear.

 

[Redlambs]

I think you've got a very naive take on all this.

It's actually you with the naive take.

You are right, we all know why the WC is there and we all know people will put money first. That is, and sadly always will be, the reality of the situation.

But whilst there, surely it matters that some speak out and highlight it? In your way, nobody says anything...I'd take a voice, even one being paid a lot of money, over someone being paid a load of money and happily doing so whilst not giving a shit.

And it's the same for the players, I see some posts about a ranking of who's worse and it's not their fault, but the likes of Kane and Southgate have mouthed of about the armband and used that as their excuse for going, and yet when it comes down to it they shit themselves and decide just playing is more important. Just the same as those who never made a stance in the first place.

So again, whilst you are right about this tourney and the money, you should see that at least people using their voices on that stage is better than those that wouldn't. Keane and Wright spoke out and said things their replacements wouldn't, on live TV. Surely by any metric that's got to be a positive no?

 

[Roane]

OK, do you think homosexuality is immoral?

Do you think a non elected government should discriminate against people based on sexual orientation?

Now this isn't the easy question you all some of you claim it or think it to be. Basically because of the notion of immortality and what it means to people. As someone earlier seem to think saying yes automatically means you hate an individual and wish them harm. The word in Islam is faluqh(so) and it's meaning differs.

Islamically Islam sees anal sex and sex outside the union of marriage as immoral. I follow Islam so as a concept, to me the individual Muslim yes it is immoral. But it's also immoral for me the individual to hate a gay person or oppress or harm.

Even outside of that, before I became practising Muslim, the thought of me engaging in homosexuality was a no no. I would say I find the thought of it horrible. Disgusting even. Similarly a gay person, and I've heard this from a gay person, the thought of sex with a woman made them physically sick. They didn't hate heterosexuals as it was simply something they didn't engage in.

Hope that answers your question to your satisfaction

 

[Roane]

If you think that being gay is sinful or immoral then you don't accept them. You don't view their existence as valid.

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

 

[maniak]

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

Nothing faux about it. It's simple really. Is being gay immoral? No, it's not. See, easy.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I follow Islam so as a concept, to me the individual Muslim yes it is immoral. But it's also immoral for me the individual to hate a gay person or oppress or harm.

Roane, I think the issue is simply that you find this to be an acceptable compromise that resolves the tension. I think a lot of people disagree.

 

[moses]

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

The movement for gay rights is, 100 years old and hugely successful and widely supported, why is the outrage faux to you?

Don't you have empathy for those who suffer.?

Above you said the idea of homosexual sex is horrible to you and that heterosexual sex was equally unpleasant to a gay person you knew. Equal but opposite, but equal. Why should one be oppressed? And if oppressed why doubt the anger?

 

[Roane]

The movement for gay rights is, 100 years old and hugely successful and widely supported, why is the outrage faux to you?

Don't you have empathy for those who suffer.?

Above you said the idea of homosexual sex is horrible to you and that heterosexual sex was equally unpleasant to a gay person you knew. Equal but opposite, but equal. Why should one be oppressed? And if oppressed why doubt the anger?

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them. This in a nutshell is no different for me. It's simply not the big deal it's being made into for me.

A guy is hetrosexual? So

A guy is homosexual? So

A guy is atheist? So

A guy is Christian? So

A guy is Muslim? So

That's how I see it

 

[moses]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them. This in a nutshell is no different for me. It's simply not the big deal it's being made into for me.

A guy is hetrosexual? So

A guy is homosexual? So

A guy is atheist? So

A guy is Christian? So

A guy is Muslim? So

That's how I see it

You're doubting the oppression? OK, so that's why you don't get the outrage.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them.

If that’s all true, you must surely side with the LGBT community rather than the qatar government then…

As one is simply living how God designed them - and you say you view them equally - and the other IS oppressing them and harming them, which you say you view as immoral.

Is this all correct?

 

[Roane]

Roane, I think the issue is simply that you find this to be an acceptable compromise that resolves the tension. I think a lot of people disagree.

And that's fine. I am not asking for agreement. I was asked a question and I tried to answer it honestly.

There is no compromise as far as I am concerned. Reason being that the very authority I follow to say something is immoral makes it immoral for me to oppress.

I can dislike you but I won't be unjust to you.

It may sound like a contradiction to some. But I have literally stood toe to toe with a gayan who was being abused against the abuser. We are friends as a result but he knows my views. And it's taken him 15 years to accept I am serious, and in his view weird

 

[Roane]

You're doubting the oppression? OK, so that's why you don't get the outrage.

Not sure I understand.

 

[2cents]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed

I think most posters on here would find the legal status of homosexuality in an ideal Islamic state as you described here to be oppressive. Assuming you are in favor of such a state, it becomes hard to understand the above statement.

 

[Roane]

If that’s all true, you must surely side with the LGBT community rather than the qatar government then…

As one is simply living how God designed them - and you say you view them equally - and the other IS oppressing them and harming them, which you say you view as immoral.

Is this all correct?

For me this is where I feel it gets complicated for people what I'm trying to say. Or some are not listening because they want a yes or no say they can go on a rant or whatever.

It's not Qatar or anyone elses business what people do behind closed doors. As a Muslim and even before I have no issue with certain rulings around no PDA. Nothing worse than seeing people eating each others faces in public regardless of gender/sexuality.

If and I mean IF Qatar have said two males can't room share, that's wrong. Because it's not an issue as far as I am aware. I've not been to Qatar but I've been to the middle East and we've had up to 5 lads room sharing. No issue.

The whole hand holding and hugging is a non issue for me too. Again because I see this as normal in these places amongst males and females. Moreso than in UK for example. And Islamically it's Sunnah to hold your wife's hand.

If in Qatar they are asking the question randomly. It's wrong. It's no one's business to ask are you holding hands because you're mates or are you gay? I don't believe this happens but if it does then I blame Qatar.

If a couple are literally having sex in public then whip them for all I care, again regardless if they are gay or straight. And that is not a faith thing. It's just wrong for me. Get a room. Nobody needs to be seeing that.

 

[Roane]

I think most posters on here would find the legal status of homosexuality in an ideal Islamic state as you described here to be oppressive. Assuming you are in favor of such a state, it becomes hard to understand the above statement.

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole.

Look I know you to be more learned than some on Islam based on previous conversations.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Now that doesn't mean that person was wrong. Maybe adultery and/or homosexuality tool place. But it was behind closed doors so no bodies business. The people involved cannot be judged by anyone but if you believe in God then as a Muslim you "know" this will be a sin on the day of judgement in front of God.

The basic rule is, in that state if it existed, about protecting society. Everything done behind closed doors is just that behind closed doors. It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

Plenty of my atheist friends probably secretly wish I wasn't a Muslim (jihad, terrorist, backwards brown fella). Do they not accept me fully? Do they not view my existence as valid?

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your hounding? Each person exists, however they are. They don't need another person to validate their existence.

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

 

[Redlambs]

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole.

Look I know you to be more learned than some on Islam based on previous conversations.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Now that doesn't mean that person was wrong. Maybe adultery and/or homosexuality tool place. But it was behind closed doors so no bodies business. The people involved cannot be judged by anyone but if you believe in God then as a Muslim you "know" this will be a sin on the day of judgement in front of God.

The basic rule is, in that state if it existed, about protecting society. Everything done behind closed doors is just that behind closed doors. It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

Honest question, no follow up "gotcha" or judgment from me whatsoever in this, it's pure curiosity about something I don't understand about faith in what religious texts tell us and perhaps more importantly don't:

How do you think God will judge what they do behind closed doors? If we pick a specific example, say sex before marriage, do you think that's really a big no no in his/hers/its/pastas mind?

Just seems a bit odd to me that God can judge and only them, but yet we still have rules which...we use to judge.

 

[Moby]

Oh boy. We're gonna be here for a while.

 

[calodo2003]

Oh boy. We're gonna be here for a while.

Yep. There’s a specific thread to discuss the minutiae of religion.

 

[Dumbstar]

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

That's called utopia. But where we live there are prejudices and 'beliefs'. And they tend to collide, albeit gently for the large part. I cast no first stone as I'm sure I have mine, so I get along with as many friends as I can who I'm sure have theirs.

It seems everyone is aware of the Islamic stance on homosexually, i e. it is not by birth, it is a choice. I apologise if spelling the Islamic stance out in black and white is hurtful to some but I needed to clear the air on this as there many reading. As a Muslim I don't pick and choose which parts of my religion to follow. But I respect everyone and certainly can't stand the hypocritical behaviour of Qatar (not an Islamic country) and specially FIFA/FA on it. However I wouldn't wear a rainbow armband myself for reasons already mentioned above.

I have, and have had, gay friends whom have either asked me directly about this or I have explained my position. Some have been unhappy but the large part have understood that we will never fully agree.

 

[Roane]

Honest question, no follow up "gotcha" or judgment from me whatsoever in this, it's pure curiosity about something I don't understand about faith in what religious texts tell us and perhaps more importantly don't:

How do you think God will judge what they do behind closed doors? If we pick a specific example, say sex before marriage, do you think that's really a big no no in his/hers/its/pastas mind?

Just seems a bit odd to me that God can judge and only them, but yet we still have rules which...we use to judge.

I don't want to write an essay and Ive read the other comments so maybe take this elsewhere?

 

[Redlambs]

I don't want to write an essay and Ive read the other comments so maybe take this elsewhere?

Yeah my bad mate, it's all too easy to go beyond the scope of a thread!

 

[Roane]

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

Genuinely find this interesting.

Can I ask, and obviously you don't have to answer if you don't want, as a Jewish person if I was your friend as a Muslim. As in a really close friend. And as a practising Jew your scripture said me and you would not be in the same place in the hereafter in eternity you'd not secretly wish I was Jewish?

Because if I loved you as a friend and I believed that we wouldn't be together as friends for eternity I would try my utmost to convert you . But it would be out of love not bigotry.

 

[maniak]

And that's fine. I am not asking for agreement. I was asked a question and I tried to answer it honestly.

There is no compromise as far as I am concerned. Reason being that the very authority I follow to say something is immoral makes it immoral for me to oppress.

I can dislike you but I won't be unjust to you.

It may sound like a contradiction to some. But I have literally stood toe to toe with a gayan who was being abused against the abuser. We are friends as a result but he knows my views. And it's taken him 15 years to accept I am serious, and in his view weird

I suppose the issue is that in some cases you can't be neutral, you can't react with "so?". In some situations, if you don't speak up for the oppressed, you are indirectly helping the oppressor.

And this qatar thing is a good example. If you don't actively side with the qatari lgbt community, then you're simply playing into the hands of the oppressor.

 

[2cents]

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole…It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

Yet for some reason Islamic law does acknowledge the existence of specifically homosexual acts in order to specifically proscribe them. Were that not the case - if the law simply issued a blanket proscription on all acts of a sexual nature without any such distinction - then perhaps this thread would be several pages shorter.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Yes I understand how it has worked historically and I have a certain level of respect for how the Islamic approach to such matters and other issues concerning social tolerance has played out in practice when considered in the general pre-modern context.

In terms of the modern liberal tradition embraced by the majority of posters in this discussion, both the Islamic ideal as described by you and the pre-modern practice of the Islamic tradition would be considered oppressive, regardless of how they might manifest in practice (and in any case it would be assumed that any attempt to implement the ideal is bound to result in oppression due to basic human nature).

You simply won’t find many posters in here who will ever agree that the law should ideally mandate punishments up to and including death for consensual sex between two adults of the same gender under any circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.

I’m just trying, probably unsuccessfully, to cut through some of the excess in this thread by getting to the heart of the divide in the discussion.

 

[Roane]

I suppose the issue is that in some cases you can't be neutral, you can't react with "so?". In some situations, if you don't speak up for the oppressed, you are indirectly helping the oppressor.

And this qatar thing is a good example. If you don't actively side with the qatari lgbt community, then you're simply playing into the hands of the oppressor.

I don't think I'm trying to be neutral. My views on Qatar are not neutral. I've just been honest I'm saying I don't know if certain things are as presented. Eg the men can't room together.

I also don't see it as a defence of Qatar to have a different/opposing view. Again not saying anyone has to agree with me.

I've just been reading on the boycott thread about the man with the rainbow t-shirt. I'm literally sitting here in a pink slazenger t-shirt. But when I read the uproar about him being not allowed and I kind of shake my head. Like what did folk expect now we are where we are.

Had the issue not gotten so blown up I don't think he would have worn the t-shirt and had he done so I don't think he would have been stopped. But we are where we are and it's no surprise to me he got stopped.

Then again if it didn't happen, as in he made it up, that wouldn't surprise me either as we are where we are.

Not saying he has made it up but hopefully you get the point.

 

[maniak]

I don't think I'm trying to be neutral. My views on Qatar are not neutral. I've just been honest I'm saying I don't know if certain things are as presented. Eg the men can't room together.

I also don't see it as a defence of Qatar to have a different/opposing view. Again not saying anyone has to agree with me.

I've just been reading on the boycott thread about the man with the rainbow t-shirt. I'm literally sitting here in a pink slazenger t-shirt. But when I read the uproar about him being not allowed and I kind of shake my head. Like what did folk expect now we are where we are.

Had the issue not gotten so blown up I don't think he would have worn the t-shirt and had he done so I don't think he would have been stopped. But we are where we are and it's no surprise to me he got stopped.

Then again if it didn't happen, as in he made it up, that wouldn't surprise me either as we are where we are.

Not saying he has made it up but hopefully you get the point.

But I assume you recognize the lgbt community in qatar is treated poorly, right?

In that sense, if you opt for "well, if this... and if that..." and don't take a strong stance in favor of protecting this community, then you are indirectly creating the conditions for that situation to prolong itself.

Most people aren't really angry with rainbow shirts being allowed in stadiums, that's just a detail that shows the ridiculousness of the whole thing. The real issue is how ordinary gay qataris are treated, not to mention women and migrants.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

It seems everyone is aware of the Islamic stance on homosexually, i e. it is not by birth, it is a choice. I apologise if spelling the Islamic stance out in black and white is hurtful to some but I needed to clear the air on this as there many reading. As a Muslim I don't pick and choose which parts of my religion to follow. But I respect everyone and certainly can't stand the hypocritical behaviour of Qatar (not an Islamic country) and specially FIFA/FA on it. However I wouldn't wear a rainbow armband myself for reasons already mentioned above.

I have, and have had, gay friends whom have either asked me directly about this or I have explained my position. Some have been unhappy but the large part have understood that we will never fully agree.

Thank you for making it clear, Dumbstar, and moving beyond the wilful slipperiness / vagueness that others in this thread are hiding behind. I respect you doing that.

It just seems so odd (and dangerous) to level sexuality as a choice, when I’m sure, deep down you KNOW that you’ve not chosen to be straight…

Like, I know that I didn’t choose to be straight. It’s ridiculous.

So I guess the deeper stance is that you actually believe that everyone is straight and some people are choosing to deny that in themselves…

But the massive problem with that is that the animal and natural world is full of homosexuality… and so it all falls down again.

One thing I would like to know, and please be honest, is this -

If faced with 2 acts that are viewed by your religion as immoral, which does Islam generally support over the other? In this case, being gay vs oppressing people gay.

Which is generally viewed as the worse of those two things?

Example in the Western world - shoplifting is wrong, and beating someone up is wrong, but it’s really easy to see that it’s generally accepted that shoplifting is the lesser wrong. It carries lesser punishment legally than harming another person and it provokes a lesser reaction from us as Westerners.

I’m asking this because I’m trying to understand the real context of this within the modern Islamic world. And specifically within the nonsense that qatar are pulling, I want to know why they are being excused in their actions by some.