Phobia means fear.
Fears can both be rational and irrational.
It doesn't automatically mean hate.
And it's not necessarily inhumane.
Inhumane means something entirely different, and is much more serious.
Homophobia itself isn't a political issue.
But all the policies enacted or not enacted on its behalf certainly are.
It's a heavily politicized issue.
That's just the reality of the situation.
Painting everyone who disagrees with you as inhumane isn't going to solve it.
It will just make it worse, and make the fronts even more extreme.
And describing opposing views as inhumane can even be perceived as just as hateful as many view homophobia.
Even if I agree with Mazraoui or not, I certainly believe he and everyone else should not be forced to support a political issue they don't believe in personally. Be it gambling or whatnot.
To use the same logic, you could actually describe such enforcement as inhumane.
Or fascist, though that would be a simplified description. Anyway, take your pick.
Likewise, it would be ill-advised to force players to wear anti-homosexual armbands.
Many people would actually support such a thing, but that doesn't mean they are justified.
Football forums are clearly not the place for civilized discussions on heavy politics.
But I find it ironic that demands for tolerance is often made with zero tolerance.
Sorry for the long post but I still haven't figured out how to break up into separate quotes.
"Phobia means fear.
Fears can both be rational and irrational.
It doesn't automatically mean hate.
And it's not necessarily inhumane.
Inhumane means something entirely different, and is much more serious."
Why are you focusing on the definition of phobia? The term homophobia has existed since only the 60's is never taken literally as a phobia. It may stem from it's early use to describe heterosexual men being afraid of being considered gay but phobia comes the greek word phobos. This is described as meaning "fear" (as you allude to) but is also seen to mean aversion.
If you can give me a single good reason why any would be opposed to LGBT existing that doesn't come from hate them is like to hear it. Inhumane does mean something different and to view people negatively such as homosexuals just because they exist is pretty damn inhumane.
"Homophobia itself isn't a political issue.
But all the policies enacted or not enacted on its behalf certainly are."
It very much is when one side is saying "these people exist, let us treat them equally" and the other side is for some reason disagreeing with that statement. What are these policies being enacted that make homophobia political? Is it recognising them as a protected class? That is probably something to do with the centuries of persecution against them that was very political. In this country we were locking up people just a few decades for being gay. Have you ever heard of Alan Turing?
"It's a heavily politicized issue.
That's just the reality of the situation."
It wouldn't need to be if one side could agree that accepting homosexual people exist and should not be persecuted and treated equally. That's where the politicising of the issue comes from. What is so difficult to accept that homosexuals existing and being human just like any other humans?
"Painting everyone who disagrees with you as inhumane isn't going to solve it.
It will just make it worse, and make the fronts even more extreme."
Ah that old chesnut. You can't call them that or it will them even more like that! While I do agree that opening some dialogue can be a better way forward, calling a spade a spade because it's digging a hole is not inhumane. Disagreeing that a certain section of society are not equal just because they are homosexual is simply inhumane. If that makes their views even more extreme then that's on them. I notice how you criticise those calling them inhumane rather than criticising those who have the hateful rhetoric in the first place. "No no! Don't call them that, it will make them more extreme, you are being intolerant! Let them spew their intolerance!"
"Even if I agree with Mazraoui or not, I certainly believe he and everyone else should not be forced to support a political issue they don't believe in personally. Be it gambling or whatnot.
To use the same logic, you could actually describe such enforcement as inhumane.
Or fascist, though that would be a simplified description. Anyway, take your pick."
And he wasn't forced into it. The club actually bent backwards to accommodate him at the expense of support for LGBT rights. Just as everyone else was free to criticise his viewpoints on the issue and come to a conclusion about what type of person he is. It will now be very telling if he will stick to those beliefs and refuse to wear a shirt with betting on it or if it turns out he was just a homophobic hypocrite.
You clearly don't know what fascism is. That was an incredibly stupid statement.
"Likewise, it would be ill-advised to force players to wear anti-homosexual armbands.
Many people would actually support such a thing, but that doesn't mean they are justified."
Probably because one armband sends the message "you are human, you exist and we believe you are equal" while the other would state "you are immoral and I do not want you to exist"
To try and conflate the two as somehow being even remotely comparable or the same is some levels of mental gymnastics I'm not even going to bother with.
"Football forums are clearly not the place for civilized discussions on heavy politics.
But I find it ironic that demands for tolerance is often made with zero tolerance."
Ah the paradox of tolerance. Another old chesnut making an appearance. There should be zero tolerance towards intolerance. It is not a hypothetical statement or ironic. Give yourself some time to think about it
).