He doesn’t have a valid objection. They don’t exist.
Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay
- Thread starter Pablo76
- Start date
No you are right you can't go to a mosque/synagogue and demand to be married. However it was an issue which did delay gay marriage as legal provision had to be made that ensured mosques/synagogue/church wouldn't be liable for discrimination.
As to your question I have or had family who were like that. My wife was an English convert. They were brilliant to me but had issues with certain parts/elements of Islam. Mainly may I add perpetuated by the media and majority not true. It made for interesting conversations. My MIL is a non practising Catholic and FIL full on atheist.
It's an interesting question too and I don't believe it is Islamophobic. Again because go take issue or have a belief about a general issue isn't the same as being specific to am individual.
When we got married my MIL git on great with me but was not sure about the marriage. Her questions were real for her and I tried to address them without offence. She loved her grandkids but initially thought they would lead hard lives due to being mixed race. A real thing from what I witnessed from back in her days. No different to friends or even online with people not wanting their kids being gay. Not because they would disown them or were homophobic but because they wanted the best for their kids and saw the difficulty being gay caused people. Some just said they wanted grandkids. These are real issues for real people for me.
For me it's not even about compatibility of life etc. I'm a Muslim. I believe in the core values of Islam. Others I'm not clear on or don't understand to the nth degree. And I don't need to be. The core values is what I needed convincing on before I became a practising Muslim. For me homosexuality isn't and was never a big issue in my belief. The greater issue was around sex generally and sexual relationships. I never picked the bit of punishment for homosexuality but looked at punishment for adultery etc as that was more relevant to me.
Where I think I have similarities with parents worried about mixed race kids and gay kids is that I believe in a creator that says certain things will be punished in the afterlife. This doesn't give me a right to make judgements or oppress or abuse individuals. It doesn't give me a right to impose my views. But if asked I would say what my faith says and as I a believer I don't want my family and friends to face any punishments. I don't think this makes me homophobic.
I see people saying things like in this day and age and who are you to dictate what people can do or who they love. I obviously don't dictate but I would ask them who are you to dictate what my belief is or mock it or abuse it. Every discussion that involves religion is filled with mockery and abuse.
I get your sentiment but if equality is to allow people to do what they want without hurting others then surely a religious person should not be asked to do something that goes against a principle of their religion?
Certain footballers refuse to wear poppies. It's their right but they get stick. As do TV presenters and the like.
We don't know the facts about Geuye but surely it was a situation where if he refused to wear the shirt and play without the colours it would have been much worse. Maybe not playing was the only option presented and taken?
How has he hurt people by not participating? And I do compare it to taking the knee. Respect those that do but choose not to as individual. Choice is yours.
Yes, it's a known issue and as such not a super helpful term. But as you say, the relevant communities experience a lot of the same difficulties and treatment, so it kinda makes sense, for outsiders especially, to group all these people together.
When you can, it's better to specify which community the conversation is about exactly; but there are contexts where all these communities are discussed together, and then this is still the best term we have. (Even if there is an enormous variety of abbreviations in use as well!)
probably not technically a homophobe but it’s as arbitrary distinction to make really
disagreeing with homosexuality is stupid and makes no sense
it’s like saying you disagree with bananas or something
Mate, homosexuality isn't an object like a banana...that's not at all a valid comparison.
Once homosexuality is defined properly, then we can discuss whether or not someone can disagree with it. But whatever you think it is, it is certainly not an object. That's for sure.
I've seen all kinds of different ways homosexuality has been defined. And unfortunately the definitions are not consistent. And because of that, people inevitably draw different conclusions regarding what constitutes homophobia and everything else surrounding the topic.
From what we know in psychology, at the root of sexuality is preference. Things you like sexually and things you dislike.
E.g. a straight male likes to be with females sexually, and dislikes being other males sexually.
This concept of loving/hating sexual themes goes a lot further than simply disagreeing, if you notice. It evokes raw emotions.
And some in the LGBTQ movement have taken to defining homophobia so broadly, that they view any kind discriminatory attitude which singles out gay sexual relationships as being inherently homophobic. Such as loving straight porn but hating gay porn.
They view that on the same level playing field as liking to watch white people but disliking watching black people.
Remember, according to many of them, sexuality should be treated exactly like race. Homophobia is basically like racism, they explicitly say that.
They have to come up with a definition of homophobia which takes into account the fact that to be straight, literally means, not liking and actually being turned off by the idea of gay sex.
A legal definition of homophobia is easy to come up, because it's clear when discrimination occurs from a policy perspective e.g. a shop which doesn't serve openly gay people or a business which refuses to hire homosexuals.
But they want a moral definition of homophobia, that goes beyond the legal one, and that's not at all easy to come with.
The closest analogy with sexual preference, is ironically, the analogy which the LGBTQ social movement actually REJECT which is other kinds of preferences, like religious preference or political preference etc.
Basically the idea that "I respect your right to hold your ideas/do what you want, but I prefer to have my own ideas/to do things my way".
That's a concept which is very easy to understand and yet, which they strongly resist. Because they'd prefer sexuality as a whole to be viewed more in line with something intrinsic to the human being which they have no control over and which defines their identity - like someone's race or height for example.
And you can see the tension between the two radically different concepts even on Redcafe. If you scroll up, you can see one of the users mock religious people and he basically says (paraphrasing) "can you believe that people actually believe in a man in the sky telling them what they ought to do...blah blah blah".
Basically criticizing someone's religious preference is not considered discriminatory obviously.
But if that same person says "can you believe some guys actually like to have anal sex with other guys..." And proceeds to mock people's preferred bedroom activities, I'm assuming that would constitute some kind of hate speech.
But at the root of both, is preference. And that's inescapable.
Last edited:
Can you disagree with people being black but not be racist?
So you would have been for it if there was no question of religious institutions being forced to provide services?
Again, I think you're conflating a few things here. Someone being worried about their kid being bullied or having a difficult life does not mean they 'disagree' with something or think its fundamentally wrong or sinful. If my kid was very short or not particularly smart or had autism, I'd also be worried about them. That doesn't mean I fundamentally disagree with those attributes.
Again I wasn't there so I don't know the exact circumstances of your in-laws. If they changed their views on Muslims/Islam once they'd met you and you answered their questions and it was merely ignorance to start off with, that's fine. If they continued to think that Muslims are incompatible with British life, then I would say that's islamophobic. As for the concerns re the marriage, I don't know what their concerns were. I do know if some families who were concerned because they were just clearly islamophobic and others concerned because they were worried about their child having to 'convert' and what this might mean for their future life. I don't think those are the same.
What I would counter to that is that, with all due respect, you (and I) are in no position to dictate. You have no more ability to stop gay people from living their life than you do on deciding the UK's trident policy. The problem with this particular comparison is that (using this example of beliefs), in a plurality of Muslim countries, they do dictate what LGBTQ can do in their lives, to put it mildly. There are no Gay countries that try to dictate to their Muslim populations how they live. Nor have I ever really heard any LGBTQ person in the UK saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to exist or practice their belief.
Nobody is really dictating your beliefs but you should expect to be challenged on it if that belief is potentially discriminatory towards others. For me, that applies to all kinds of beliefs.
Not to derail but I've looked at all of that and it reinforces my belief that there isn't a creator. It shows incremental development over time in a way that makes a creator unnecessary for me.
It's funny it's always the nice things that are mentioned in this context. What about Stephen Fry's example of the creatures whose sole purpose seems to be to make children blind?
im not comparing it to a banana, obviously
I’m simply saying, homosexuality is a thing that exists in the world, so you can’t disagree with it.
you can disagree that homosexuality is okay, or should be legal, but that would make you an idiot.
If you believe that sexuality is like ethnicity, that's something which needs justification.
I'm more than happy to accept that idea if it's true, but obviously I would need a reason to believe that it's true.
africanspur, you're falling into exactly the areas where the LGBTQ movement doesn't want you to go. Which is comparing sexuality with religion. Or with other preferences. They would actually reject that comparison.
See the user above you, who compared homosexuality with being black, as an example.
And regarding imposing beliefs on others, that's basically what the whole thread is about, someone being forced to wear the gay pride flag.
But there are many things that exist, which obviously we can disagree with, right? Like religion, political beliefs etc.
A straight person dislikes gay sex...that's kind of the whole point of being straight. So at some level, there obviously is disagreement.
But how do you define sexuality? That would help us determine if we should believe it is morally acceptable whether or not we can disagree with it.
Simple answer is NO.
Being gay, straight, bi or whatever defines who you are. It's not a choice.
I read it as "17 Blackpool players came out gay".
The problem is that I think that there will always be this type of cognitive dissonance for the followers of certain religions because of what their religion says about punishment in the afterlife.
This is why I believe we run into logical trouble if we have a belief in the infallibility of people or teachings from so long ago as the people involved, and those who wrote everything down, were products of their time and carry with them the prejudices and misconceptions of that time.
If I even look at the Religion I know best, catholicism, Jesus was supposed to be this great man of compassion but had seemingly had a blind spot on the subject of slavery. He didn't denounce it and used the master/slave relationship in his analogies to describe people's relationship with God. I think these things can and should be updated to reflect modern sensibilities but that's tricky because once you start picking it apart it, where do you stop?
Last edited:
Do you believe sexuality is a choice?
I have no idea why you think we need to define sexuality for this discussion, and everyone knows what homosexuality means. We don’t need to have a discussion about whether it is morally acceptable either.
actually what the feck are you going on about here?
I am doing no such thing. I came into the discussion to talk about whether someone can be homophobic if they fundamentally disagree with homosexuality from a religious perspective.
I am not comparing it to religion with regards to it being a choice but to try to frame the discussion in a similar way to the poster to gauge his feelings on whether similar statements would make him feel the person is islamophobic.
I would completely class sexuality as 'not a choice' but as an attribute, like height or race. I do not choose to be attracted to women, it is how I am and how I was born, though I do note your unfortunate post above (on many, many, many counts )about it being a choice.
As a note, I don't dislike gay sex. i just don't want to engage in it personally. That's a bit of a strange jump that you've made there. There are literally infinite things people can decide not to engage in. It doesn't mean they hate it.
every-time I go to reply to something you hit the nail on the head.
Why don't you engage in it?
If you don't dislike it, why don't you engage in it?
You just admitted that gay sex is just as appealing to you as straight sex, you don't have any particular dislike towards gay sex.
So why is it exactly that you refuse to engage in it?
I would like to focus on this point if you don't mind.
I'm curious to find out why you discriminate between the two - choosing only to engage in only one and rejecting the other.
This is the main issue as I see it. I'm suspect that anyone who is against homosexuality believes it to be a choice.
Last edited:
Because it isn't something which I personally want to do? Because I'm straight and prefer to have sex with a woman? I'm not attracted to men.
That doesn't mean that I dislike the thought of gay sex, dislike or judge gay men or think they have a choice in what they do.
I'm also not married to a South American woman, nor have I ever had sex with one (more fool me). Does that mean I dislike having sex with South American women?
There are literally as I said above an infinite number of activities I personally do not engage in. I don't sew. I don't play baseball. I don't go dogging. I don't go sky diving. I don't go to board game cafes. I don't go horse riding. I don't play the piano. I don't pray to Jesus.
Do I dislike any of those activities? No. Do I judge anyone who does do them? No.
You do get right that just because you personally don't do something, it doesn't mean that you don't automatically have to dislike it or judge those who do it?
Even much closer to home, the Appendix. At this stage it being in a human or not makes not one blind bit of difference, yet we have this little pointless thing that can blow up inside us for no reason and kill us.
That’s proof enough of things changing over time rather than being created. It absolutely was a necessity at one stage but now? Time bomb.
On a more related note, good on Jake empowering many LGBTQ+ folk out there.
Thank you, so it is a preference then? You used the word "prefer". So we're not in disagreement on that. That's the main issue.
Can people here just take a bit of time to think, next time they decide to showcase disagreement with someone?
Because if we all take take some time to think about our position on an issue, it could potentially save a lot of wasted time challenging someone else's point of view needlessly.
Sexuality really needs to be taught at school.
If you’re going to keep taking posts out of context to suit your agenda you’ll just be banned from the thread.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. You were trying to play semantics to catch them out and it's piss poor quite frankly.
Stop pissing around and state your point of view then?
save us all some valuable time we could be spending in the Amber Heard thread
No it isn't a preference. As I've clearly outlined above, I do not choose to be attracted to women any more than I choose to be black or choose to be my height.
I've outlined my view already, multiple times, which is that sexuality is not a choice. Did you choose to be attracted to women? Is it something you had to actively think about? Or did it happen naturally? Did you wake up one day, weigh up the pros and cons, had a think about gay sex and realised how disgusting it apparently sounded and decided to be straight?
We are in very fundamental disagreement on that. If you want to, change the word prefer. Change it to 'Because I'm straight and am wired to have sex with women ' if that's easier for you.
Think we could all probably do without the air of superiority from someone who seems to think straight people aren't gay because they've decided gay sex is gross.
Also..Just properly caught one of your sentences. I n what world did I say that I find gay sex as appealing as heterosexual sex?
The fact that a heterosexual person states, in a given context, a preference for having sex with women does not in any way support the idea that his - or anyone else's - sexual orientation itself is a matter of preference.
If you're going to waste people's time with annoying sophistry, at least do it right.
There is literally no gotcha here!
My entire position, if you read my posts, is that it is a preference. I literally wrote that multiple times. And now someone else has admitted that it is a preference.
And just by pointing that out, I'm accused by a moderator of taking their words out of context, when I literally quoted them. The user literally used the word "prefer". There is no gotcha here. I'm just wondering why someone like that, would waste my time by pretending to act like it's not a preference when in the end, they will have to admit it is, and they did.
What's interesting is that when people take my words out of context, which Tarrou has done for example, the moderator won't jump in and declare that off limits. Even when they're blatantly lying, not just about my position, but also about their own position.
It's like some people don't even realize that posting online leaves a trail of evidence? Like, we can see what Tarrou wrote, he compared homosexuality to a banana, and he denied that, as if we can't see with out own eyes what he wrote.
I'll never understand people like that.
My entire position, if you read my posts, is that it is a preference. I literally wrote that multiple times. And now someone else has admitted that it is a preference.
And just by pointing that out, I'm accused by a moderator of taking their words out of context, when I literally quoted them. The user literally used the word "prefer". There is no gotcha here. I'm just wondering why someone like that, would waste my time by pretending to act like it's not a preference when in the end, they will have to admit it is, and they did.
What's interesting is that when people take my words out of context, which Tarrou has done for example, the moderator won't jump in and declare that off limits. Even when they're blatantly lying, not just about my position, but also about their own position.
It's like some people don't even realize that posting online leaves a trail of evidence? Like, we can see what Tarrou wrote, he compared homosexuality to a banana, and he denied that, as if we can't see with out own eyes what he wrote.
I'll never understand people like that.
You're born with both.
People don't chose their skin colour or sexuality, they're born with it.
I am born straight, so i will always be attracted to women, both for sex and relationship.
Who others are attracted to is not my business, i find it incredibly weird how people can hate others for who they are attracted to. It doesn't affect their lives in any way.
Those not supporting people's rights because of what they are born as, if that is sexuality or having a different skin colour, are dicks.
You're also born atheist, religion is taught, often forced.
Just for comparison.
Do you believe sexuality is a choice?
For further context by the way to help you understand further, I 'prefer' being black and a part of the afro-Caribbean culture vs any other culture. My Egyptian side of my in laws prefer being Egyptian and wouldn't choose to be any other nationality. I also 'prefer' being tall to being short and thankfully am tall.
Are any of those things choices? No.
Can you see how people can prefer things about themselves, even if they have no ability to change those attributes?
Seeing as you like asking questions, I'll send one back your way about it being a choice? Why would someone choose to be gay in countries where it is literally illegal and carries a potential jail sentence or worse? And considering they face discrimination even in western countries?
Insulting another member
Yeah, that’s exactly what happened. I compared homosexuality to a banana
You are an insufferable prick. I don’t even care I’ll take the warning points, go feck yourself man, your views on homosexuality are disgusting.
If you believe homosexuality is a choice then surely you’re someone who could easily have sex with another man but just choose not to?
Because you’d then choose to be heterosexual indicating there were two viable options for you to pick from that would have worked for you
It’s either an innate sexual attraction or it’s like a dietary preference. If you believe the second then your own heterosexuality is in question if you’ve arrived at it the same way you arrive at deciding what outfit to wear
Because you’d then choose to be heterosexual indicating there were two viable options for you to pick from that would have worked for you
It’s either an innate sexual attraction or it’s like a dietary preference. If you believe the second then your own heterosexuality is in question if you’ve arrived at it the same way you arrive at deciding what outfit to wear
Topgun replied to this by posting on by wall
No I don't believe gay people should be hated.
No I don't believe gay people should be discriminated against.
Most of your post was basically incorrect assumptions and just laughable ideas like "people are born atheist" which btw, is off-topic. If you want to push atheism, that's not the way to do it.
But your comment about choice is a fair one, and that's something I can address tomorrow when I'm allowed to.
--------------------------
Anyone care to help me understand what were "incorrect assumptions"?
I did like the "laughable ideas like people are born atheist" part.
Which by the way isn't offtopic at all, since most people who are against homosexuality are because of religion.
Here's what he said:
No I don't believe gay people should be hated.
No I don't believe gay people should be discriminated against.
Most of your post was basically incorrect assumptions and just laughable ideas like "people are born atheist" which btw, is off-topic. If you want to push atheism, that's not the way to do it.
But your comment about choice is a fair one, and that's something I can address tomorrow when I'm allowed to.
--------------------------
Anyone care to help me understand what were "incorrect assumptions"?
I did like the "laughable ideas like people are born atheist" part.
Which by the way isn't offtopic at all, since most people who are against homosexuality are because of religion.
I’ve been away this week so may have missed it but has there been much reaction from players in the game? Ex pros, pundits and politicians seem to have rallied with support but haven’t seen much from those currently in the game
Not at all, no-one is asking anyone to promote the view that homosexuality is good/morale whatever. They're asking him to accept and promote the view that homosexuals are welcome in sport whether as players or fans. The former is an opinion which would go against some interpretations of all of the Abrahamic faiths, acceptance of the latter is, nominally at least, one of the basic principles of our society. And, again, ensuring that gay people are able to engage in football on equal footing with straight people is literally a legal requirement for any organisation, employer and employee in the industry.
And can we please ditch this pretence that it's somehow unusual for an organisation attempting to bring about some sort of internal cultural change to expect it's employees to be part of that change? In many large workplaces a requirement to foster an inclusive working environment is now written into the job description.
And if he says "no comment", or What if he says " I simply choose not to" what do we do then?