Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay
- Thread starter Pablo76
- Start date
The very question is faulty.
Homosexuality isn't an opinion or a life choice to be disagreed with. People are gay. They don't choose it, they are born that way.
The homophobic or to be kind ignorant mindset is one which pushes this idea that's it's a choice people are making. If it's part of who they are, how can anyone say they disagree with it? Essentially what they're saying is that they don't agree that a section of society should live an authentic life and be allowed to love who they love.
Is anyone aware of any actual homophobic incident/allegation against Gueye? Other than refusing to be forced to publicly support something he may have valid objections to. Surely homophobia doesn't extend to politely refusing to wear the rainbow shirt? It didn't make news until the FFP published it. That should be a personal decision. I didn't hear similar rows about half the F1 paddock kneeling and the other half standing during races. I'm sure there are several other examples.
Except that for a long time, most of the world didn't accept homosexuality. Which of course was awfully wrong. Thankfully that has changed. But didn't change at the same time for everyone. It took progressive education and enlightenment. Similar to Black rights. There's an intolerance to the movement to force everyone to be of the same mind at the same time. So long as the dissenter isn't doing anyone any actual harm, I would rather educate than condemn.
Zaha is black and decided he didn’t want to take the knee as it was ineffective in tackling racism, so he didn’t want to do it. What does that have to do with someone homophobic deciding not to take part in raising awareness.
It would more like a white player refusing to take the knee because they disliked black people, or disagreed with them being treated equally.
And I know a minority of white players didn’t take the knee after a while. Again if they felt the messaging wasn’t correct. This is still not comparable.
I didn't think I was condemning anyone
I've only met 2 people in my life who were gay. Both were colleagues. Well 2 that I know of.
I didn't treat them any differently and neither should anyone else.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Also in his view kneeling was subservient and he wanted to stand tall.
I didn't treat them any differently and neither should anyone else.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
I can't remember who the interview was with but he felt symbolic protest was a waste of time when fifa/eufa etc don't take proper action. He gave the example of the tiny fines given out to national FAs where supporters have been racist.
Also in his view kneeling was subservient and he wanted to stand tall.
I was careful to write that maybe "disagree" is the wrong word. You'll have to forgive me for that. I sometimes struggle with writing my thoughts down using the right word.
And yes for me it is about religion. But it's a religion that doesn't allow me to hate people as individuals. The basic "mantra" is "to you your way, to me mine" when it comes to a concept. However it is never a case of hating the individual, oppressing the individual or abusing the individual.
My conduct with an individual, as a friend or as an acquaintance will never be based on their lifestyle, belief or race etc. I don't need to participate in an event or symbol to not be homophobic or racist etc.
I'll give an example. I don't drink and don't frequent bars etc. I have special attachment to mental health and things like dementia or autism etc. Based on having an autistic son and losing loved ones to Alzheimer's and so on.
I was invited to an event to discuss BME, specifically Muslim, participation in the organising an event for Mind. During the discussion it was highlighted that they wanted to be more inclusive to Muslim community which has a large presence in the area it was going to be held.
This meeting was at the civic centre, but Mind usually met in a local rock club/bar. A sort of discussion over drinks. It was obvious to me as a Muslim why Muslims didn't attend at that venue. The organising committee didn't want to change the venue. So I said they should carry on but then not expect a Muslim presence. They invited me and I said I was supportive and would help in other ways but wouldn't be attending the meeting due to venue. One guy said "well we don't want you there with your fundamental views". Who is the problem here?
Am I intolerant? Or whatever ism would be appropriate here with regards to mental health?
Nah. Not you. Pardon me if it sounded that way. I meant the general tone of response to Gueye. Well beyond the Caf.
Well he wasn’t wrong. It was continued for far too long by the PC brigade.
Players coming out disagreeing with homosexuality is also normal. Since they are come from highly religious countries that either ban it or look down upon it. It’s basically going to be a sample size for the Worlds opinions. Nothing shocking about it, even if we all consider that view point wrong.
Not that I’ve gone looking but I’ve not actually seen a shitty tweet or response to this so far which is really refreshing. I’m sure there have been but I’ve not seen it.
Speaking as a raging alcoholic, I find your views on this absolutely misguided and wrong (and I think you should be arrested).
Seriously, though - given the nature of the thing, I'd say the committee is obviously the problem. You have to give a little to get a little. You don't attract non-drinkers by organizing a "meeting over drinks", that's idiotic.
I guess it depends on the reasons for the lack of support. Ultimately anyone can support whichever cause they choose but if someone is going out of their way to abstain from supporting a marginalised group, it would be helpful to explain their reason.
Very well said!
I stopped reading at PC brigade.
It is a shame that they didn't change the venue, and it seems wrong of that person to reference "fundamentalist views" because you felt uncomfortable with the venue chosen. It doesn't sound like that person or group was inclusive.
Also, your dedication to mental health issues is admirable.
However, i don't think either scenario is an accurate or appropriate parallel to draw with respect to acceptance of homosexuality in society. Whether one drinks or not is a choice (except in cases of addiction). Mental illness is a disease. Homosexuality is neither of those things. It is an orientation intrinsic and natural to a person, hence to disagree, negatively judge or discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation is wrong.
Haha yes.
I think what I'm trying to highlight is that things are not black and white. There are nuances to things. I mean with Mind they always propagated the belief that the local Asian/Muslim community weren't interested in mental health issues.
I could give you many examples tbh. For example our SRB5 project was a youth based initiative. Called youth up front. The two main community reps were a lesbian couple. The director was an Asian bloke (my mentor for my master's). Yet all 3 called me homophobic when I refused to take part an in an event they had organised. On the face of it many folk would agree with them, based on just that bit of information.
Yet here is the full story. The event was to be televised locally and loads of press invited. Yet the majority of the participants had not come out to family and friends. My reason for non participation was to protect these young people over a "quick win" for the project to show how they were doing loads for the gay community. The event went ahead without me and sure enough many young people invited hadn't been aware of the media presence and suddenly were plastered all over the local papers and TV. I know of at least 5 lads who were kicked out by family as a result. There was uproar by the majority of the participants.
Right - but to be clear: you do support those lads? As in - you support their right to be open about their sexuality? You just felt they weren't properly informed about the exact nature of the event in question?
In this particular event, how did your non-participation protect those young people, considering the event went ahead anyway?
I think, as others have said, you're conflating a few different things.
The story you gave above of Mind and them refusing to change the location from one serving alcohol is frankly ridiculous. Them calling you a fundamentalist for not wanting to go to a pub/bar even more so.
In terms of 'disagreeing' with homosexuality, I think I know exactly what you mean as it is rife in both different African communities, as well as Muslim communities.
What I think you mean is that you (and others) essentially think it is fundamentally wrong. That they're committing a sin.
It doesn't mean you want to kill them though. You don't want to ostracise them. You perhaps think its none of your business what they do in their personal lives. You don't campaign to have gay marriage overturned, though you may have voted against it if it was put to a referendum. If they were in your workplace, you may even treat them in exactly the same way as you do everyone else.
But you fundamentally thing its 'wrong' for want of a better word.
Does that sound about right?
Does that make someone homophobic? I guess it depends on own scale. By the scale of some of my in-laws, that would essentially make you a rainbow flag waving hippy. For some others, it probably would be classified as a type of homophobia.
My main concern was protecting the young people. If they had wanted to go and "out" themselves I would have been more supportive of the event. I was against the event being about the organisation/organisers and not the people they were meant to "serve" or who the event should have been about.
The director wasn't homosexual incidentally and to me just didn't understand the potential issues/problems the event could (and did) present for the participants. To me, and I accept it maybe a stretch for some folk, that was more homophobic than my stance.
I obviously don't know anything about the particulars here - but what you say sounds very reasonable to me.
To be honest, if we take this story at face value (and I will as I have no reason to doubt what you are saying), I actually agree with you.
That director showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the cultural context that those particular LGBTQ individuals lived in and essentially take away their agency in terms of the timing of coming out to those close to them. Incredibly irresponsible and selfish.
Ultimately I suppose it didn't help. However I was told to back off and shut up, in essence, when I raised my concerns. To the point that when I was making it known to some of the youngsters that there would be media there and their pics would be in the papers I was no longer invited to further planning meetings for the event. Although that is not that unusual in my work. I mean I disagree with the BNP too but had to share community forum platforms with them as they were the elected councillors in a couple of areas in my remit.
With regard to the rest of your points there is a "truth" in them. I could expand on a few but it would become a religious thread.
With gay marriage I spoke against it initially. Again not through any homophobic feelings but more to do with conversations/meetings with gay forums/organisations. So for example Stonewall. Their public message was about gay marriage for equal rights. However their "agenda" for want of a better word was forcing religious institutions to marry them. What I mean here was in early conversations the civil ceremonies were seen and accepted as giving rights to gay couples that married couples had. However had the govt legalised gay marriages the idea was to turn up to churches, synagogues and mosques to say marry us or get done for discrimination (in my very simple terms/words here). This is why it took a little longer and provisos had to put in the law to prevent this.
What I don't get is if sex and gender are separate, then why are the two conflated under the LGBTQ+ umbrella? I don't really see what a man liking other men or a woman liking other women has to do with a man thinking he's a woman and vice versa, there's quite a detachment between the two. I get that historically they're all marginalised groups but I don't think that means we should just lump them all into an ever-growing acronym. I'm sure there are plenty of gay people that don't associate themselves with other parts of LGBTQ+ either, being gay doesn't disqualify you from having views on gender for example that wouldn't be considered correct.
Last edited:
I've been trying to Google the event and the article after the event but can't seem to find anything. After the event the article was about the repercussions for some and complaints from those attending the event
It was a few years back. But absolutely true, as in it happened.
Again mate, I'm not doubting that the event happened. As I said, that director was incredibly irresponsible.
I'm not totally convinced that was ever on the cards to be totally honest. I'm pretty sure I can't go to a synagogue or hindu temple now and demand that they perform a wedding ceremony on me and I don't think LGBTQ couples would have been able to either.
Seeing as we're talking about religion with regards to this, I guess I'll frame it this way. If someone fundamentally 'disagrees' with muslims and Islam as a whole. They've never committed a violent act towards Muslims. They don't want them deported. They treat them in a perfectly civil way if they're around.
But fundamentally just don't think they're particularly compatible with Western life.
Is that person islamophobic?
I think (rightly) the threshold for being called islamophobic is not just being a BNP/EDL figure.
I still can’t people some people hate other people because an imaginary man in the sky told them too. They don’t drink for the same reason 
Wouldn't you say that you disagree with the psychopath's urge to harm others while agreeing that he was born that way?
You can't be feckin serious
You'd disapprove or dislike. You disagree with an opinion, not something that just is.
I keep bouncing around & I thought I was still in the Elon Musk thread for a second when I read this post.
To me, there's a clear line separating both situations (alcool and the Gueye situation).
I don't mind accomodating my muslim friends when they come over for dinner. I'll buy halal food and be careful not to touch products including pork. It's not a big deal, it's food, or alcool and it doesn't hurt anyone. I can't say I deeply understand it but after all, people won't cook mushrooms when I come over because I don't like that, it would be silly for me not to take into account their religious beliefs.
There's a huge difference with what happened with Gueye. This was a special day to promote equal rights for the LGBT community especially in sports (a huge issue) and while I can easily compromise with a lot of religious restrictions, I won't tolerate anyone not considering that the most basic right on earth for human beings, meaning the right to peacefully live regardless of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, deserves to be promoted. People should not say "I'm not homophobic but I don't want to promote gay causes" but "My culture considers being gay is wrong but I promote their right to live peacefully anyway even if I don't like it".
Also, homosexuality is unfortunately instrumentalized by a lot of African leaders to create a rejection of the western culture. I've read a LOT of african (in this case from Senegal) saying that homosexuality was created by the decadent western culture and that it wouldn't happen in africa because they have values there. For them, gays in Africa exist because of western influence (which is absurd from an historical/biological standpoint).
So I guess that's where I draw my line, I consider that any person not willing to promote equality is intolerent (to various degrees obviously, you seem like a very nice person). Obviously it doesn't mean that you need to be constantly promoting everything but when presented the chance, you should go for it. I'm not a religious person but i've been to many protests to defend religious communities against persecution.
And obviously, we can't compare that to black players refusing to take the knee because they didn't think it was an efficient gesture, we all know that's not the reason why Gueye asked not to play, I highly doubt he considered that the rainbow shirt was not efficient enough to protect gay rights.
Last edited:
Fair.
Whats the valid objections?
People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone but the Creater is not an imaginary man. No one in their right mind believes that everything that exists being created by nothing. If you look at the sky, the sea or even us humans you would realise that there is a Creater.I still can’t people some people hate other people because an imaginary man in the sky told them too. They don’t drink for the same reason
Putting pride colours on a shirt is a weak and, in PSG's case, deeply hypocritical, gesture of solidarity but it's by no means a controversial political statement. The message it's clearly intended to send is that gay people have as much right to watch, play and work in football without fear or discrimination or harassment as anyone else does. That should be taken as read in any country which claims to be a liberal democracy. Those who can't get behind that message have no place in a workplace or an industry which purports to value inclusivity, tolerance and equality. You don't have to like homosexuality to accept that gay people have as much of a right to get on with their lives as anyone else does.
Gueye is perfectly within his rights to hold bigoted opinion about gay people (if that is indeed the case here) but he's not entitled to let those views affect his work or the people he works with. His job is to represent his club, both by playing football whilst wearing their football strip and by appearing in advertising, marketing, kit-related PR stunts etc. Disliking gays doesn't give him carte blanche not to do his job. At the same time, PSG presumably have a legal responsibility as an employer to ensure a working environment where LGBT staff are able to do their jobs without fear of discrimination or harassment on account of their sexuality (in the UK this responsibility comes under the Equalities Act 2010). I'm not sure how keeping Gueye around (again, if his aversion to the shirt was indeed based in homophobia) is compatible with that.
Coming back to the thread title, how can we expect young gay lads to feel confident about coming out when dressing rooms are full of homophobes?
Gueye is perfectly within his rights to hold bigoted opinion about gay people (if that is indeed the case here) but he's not entitled to let those views affect his work or the people he works with. His job is to represent his club, both by playing football whilst wearing their football strip and by appearing in advertising, marketing, kit-related PR stunts etc. Disliking gays doesn't give him carte blanche not to do his job. At the same time, PSG presumably have a legal responsibility as an employer to ensure a working environment where LGBT staff are able to do their jobs without fear of discrimination or harassment on account of their sexuality (in the UK this responsibility comes under the Equalities Act 2010). I'm not sure how keeping Gueye around (again, if his aversion to the shirt was indeed based in homophobia) is compatible with that.
Coming back to the thread title, how can we expect young gay lads to feel confident about coming out when dressing rooms are full of homophobes?
Last edited:
Interesting that religion is a protected characteristic under the same Act.
It's arguable, in fact, since you bring it up, that by attempting to force the player to promote a view that is expressly against his religion you would be harassing him.
That puts these protected characteristics (religion and sexual orientation) on a collision course unless society recognizes that a balance must be struck.
That balance, for me is, no one should be allowed to undertake actions that interfere with anothers wellbeing but beyond that, everyone should be free to believe what they like. That is a fundamental human right.
And I'm certain everyone understands this at some level because no white footballer who refuses to take the knee has been accused of racial discrimination or harassment under the Equalities Act 2010, just yet. Nor should they be.