comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 43 seconds ago
Didn't realise this was such a passionate topic for a lot on here when I opened this thread!
Again playing devils advocate here, for those of you are strongly in support of wearing the armbands, tracksuits etc how do you feel about the below.
A brother and sister both adults both consenting both agreeing never to have child and they wish to marry as they are deeply in love with each other and want to live as a married couple?
Would you support their right to love just as you support the right to love of two gay men? And would you wear and want others to wear armbands etc to celebrate their love to make them feel included along with the rest of society?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re comparing homosexuality to iincest and want someone to honour that post with a serious answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you want to argue otherwise please do. Can you tell me why one love is ok and the other isn't? Both are found in nature with one being way more common than the other.
Unless you want to tell me otherwise? If you truly believe people should be allowed to love whoever they want then can you explain why you'd see issue with one and not the other?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sister was pretty ugly so thankfully never had to cross that bridge. My brother on the other hand....
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
Every season the Sun reports a 'gang o' gaaays' are going to come out together 😂
If a PL player at a lower club did come out they would make a fortune, more than they do playing football. They would get all the protection and support too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could set you up on a date with a NL footballer if you like?
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 43 seconds ago
Didn't realise this was such a passionate topic for a lot on here when I opened this thread!
Again playing devils advocate here, for those of you are strongly in support of wearing the armbands, tracksuits etc how do you feel about the below.
A brother and sister both adults both consenting both agreeing never to have child and they wish to marry as they are deeply in love with each other and want to live as a married couple?
Would you support their right to love just as you support the right to love of two gay men? And would you wear and want others to wear armbands etc to celebrate their love to make them feel included along with the rest of society?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re comparing homosexuality to iincest and want someone to honour that post with a serious answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you want to argue otherwise please do. Can you tell me why one love is ok and the other isn't? Both are found in nature with one being way more common than the other.
Unless you want to tell me otherwise? If you truly believe people should be allowed to love whoever they want then can you explain why you'd see issue with one and not the other?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sister was pretty ugly so thankfully never had to cross that bridge. My brother on the other hand....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He got the looks?
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
-------------------------
Finally, I can start eating newborns without feeling shame.
comment by Arnefield RAP (U22951)
posted 32 minutes ago
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
-------------------------
Finally, I can start eating newborns without feeling shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And so it should be. It’s all a load of bollox nonsense. Should be treated all the sane, whatever faith, unfounded nonsense that does more harm than good.
I thought Gruehi's armband gave off Westboro Baptist vibes
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Swap Islam for Christianity here and I believe at least one of those scenarios actually has happened. Though I believe it was in the states.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 17 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 7 hours, 33 minutes ago
A Muslim man who is attracted to other men owns one of the biggest Islamic channels on youtube. He doesn't wear rainbows either and will never promote that campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/@BloggingTheology/videos
Choosing not to promote sexual relationships between the same gender, doesn't equate to hating those people, as you can see from the comments on all of the videos on that channel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is going right over your head isn't it.
It's not about one guy and it's not about hating on His religion. It's about the "Religious reasons" bluster, what is it specifically about his religious that prevents him from wearing rainbow tat?
If he's so religious he's making a stand, state the passage in whatever ancient book he adheres to.
Personally couldn't give a f**k about his or anybodies religion but it's 2024, if you're gonna cite religion then open it up to critique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion should welcome critique if believers hold their faith to be true.
My original comment was to clarify that rejecting the act of wearing rainbows isn't inherently bigoted. Just as one doesn't need to wave the "banner of the eagle" (Islamic flag) to support Muslims, one can verbally advocate for the right of LGBTQ individuals not to be harmed without needing to display a rainbow.
In many religious contexts, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, same-sex sexual activities are forbidden, but this does not mean that individuals who adhere to these beliefs harbour hate for those with different lifestyles; rather, their objection is to specific acts or symbols, not to the people themselves.
It's clear from discussions here that some individuals have reservations about certain religious principles, but this does not imply they wish harm upon or seek to restrict the freedom of those who follow these religions in their private lives.
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 24 minutes ago
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked ChatGPT is it hypocritical and here what it said:
The statement raises a philosophical and theological question that hinges on how one interprets the nature and will of God. Here are some considerations:
Is it hypocritical?
1. Theological Consistency:
From a theological perspective, those who believe that God is the creator of all things also often believe that God establishes moral guidelines for human behavior. For example, in Abrahamic traditions, God's laws are seen as an expression of divine wisdom, designed to guide humanity toward flourishing.
Therefore, forbidding same-sex relationships might not be viewed as hypocritical if it aligns with the interpretation of divine commandments.
2. Creator vs. Moral Lawgiver:
The idea that God is the creator of all things does not necessarily imply that God approves of all human actions or inclinations. Many religious traditions hold that human behavior should align with specific divine principles, even if those principles may appear restrictive.
3. Free Will:
Many theological frameworks posit that God created humans with free will, allowing them to make choices, including those that might go against divine teachings. In this view, God's creation of individuals with diverse inclinations does not equate to an endorsement of all behaviors.
Is the argument logically sound?
1. False Equivalence:
The statement conflates two distinct aspects of theology: God as creator and God as lawgiver. While God is said to have created all things, that does not mean all behaviors or relationships align with divine intentions as understood in various religious teachings.
2. Cultural and Doctrinal Interpretations:
Different religious traditions and denominations interpret same-sex relationships differently. Some view them as contrary to divine will, while others see them as part of the diversity within God's creation. Whether it is "hypocritical" depends on the specific theological framework in question.
Alternative Perspectives:
1. Progressive Theology:
Some progressive theologians argue that same-sex relationships are compatible with the idea of a loving creator, suggesting that traditional interpretations may reflect cultural biases rather than divine truth.
2. Natural Law Argument:
Traditionalists might argue from natural law theology, suggesting that sexual relationships have a specific purpose (e.g., procreation) and that same-sex relationships deviate from this purpose. They would not see this as hypocritical but as consistent with a divinely ordained natural order.
Conclusion:
Whether the statement is true or hypocritical depends on the theological lens applied. For those who see God's laws as immutable and rooted in divine wisdom, it is not hypocritical to forbid certain behaviors, even if God is the creator of all things. However, for those who interpret divine creation as encompassing and affirming all expressions of human love, the statement may carry more weight. Ultimately, the claim involves reconciling different interpretations of theology, morality, and human experience.
It's like the old falsehood back in the day that IBM would deliberately create and ship faulty PCs to demonstrate how good their customer service was.
If there was an all creating god they'd create everything good with everyone abiding by their principles. Only then they'd be out a job so they have to create some sin so they can shout, "LOOK!"
CiC.
Reading that, it seems certain religions choose to define same-sex relationships as a behaviour or sn inclination rather than as sexuality and, imo, highlights the limitations of ancient texts and moralities in our modern, scientifically literate age.
I think the UK as a society is *generally liberal, diverse and accommodating to minorities, IF a player or anyone in public life cites their religion for breaking the norm then its incumbent, imo, on them to explain themselves, not just to justify themselves but to educate the rest of us.
I put that in to ChatGPT and this is its response:
1. Behavior vs. Sexuality in Ancient Texts
The claim that ancient texts define same-sex relationships as behaviors or inclinations rather than as an intrinsic aspect of identity reflects a key difference between premodern and modern worldviews:
Ancient Understanding of Sexuality:
Most ancient texts (religious or otherwise) did not conceptualize sexuality in terms of fixed identities like "gay" or "straight." Instead, they often addressed specific actions or behaviors that were seen as moral or immoral based on cultural, ethical, or theological principles.
Modern Understanding of Sexuality:
In contrast, modern scientific and sociological frameworks view sexuality as an intrinsic part of identity, influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. This shift in understanding can lead to tension when ancient moral frameworks are applied to contemporary issues.
Reconciling Ancient Morality with Modern Insights:
It’s worth considering whether ancient texts were addressing broader principles of human behavior rather than providing rigid rules for all time. Some argue that their teachings can be reinterpreted to align with modern values, while others hold that these texts remain authoritative regardless of societal change.
---
2. Limitations of Ancient Texts
The suggestion that ancient texts and moralities have limitations in a "scientifically literate age" assumes that moral truths evolve in parallel with scientific progress:
Timeless vs. Contextual Morality:
Supporters of ancient texts might argue that their moral teachings address timeless aspects of human nature, which remain relevant regardless of scientific advancement. For example, principles like justice, compassion, and self-discipline transcend specific cultural or historical contexts.
Critiques of Modernity:
Conversely, critics of modern morality might point out that scientific literacy doesn’t necessarily lead to moral clarity. For example, technological advancements have enabled both positive progress (e.g., medical breakthroughs) and morally troubling outcomes (e.g., nuclear weapons).
Nuance in Ancient Texts:
While ancient texts may reflect the limitations of their time, they often contain profound ethical insights that can still resonate. Whether these insights are adaptable to modern contexts is a matter of interpretation and debate.
---
3. Societal Expectations and Public Figures
In liberal, diverse societies like the UK, there is a strong expectation for public figures to justify their views, particularly when they break societal norms:
Responsibility to Educate:
Public figures who cite religion as a basis for their views are often expected to articulate their reasoning, not only to justify their stance but to foster understanding in a pluralistic society. This is especially important in societies that value inclusivity and diversity.
Challenge of Bridging Worldviews:
However, this can be challenging for individuals who hold religious beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with prevailing societal norms. Explaining a worldview rooted in faith to an audience that values secular, evidence-based reasoning often requires patience, nuance, and mutual respect.
Respect for Difference:
While education is important, it’s equally vital for society to respect deeply held convictions, even when they don’t align with mainstream values. Liberalism itself depends on protecting the rights of individuals to hold and express diverse beliefs, as long as they don’t harm others.
---
4. A Balanced Perspective
Both sides of this conversation have valid points:
For the Modern Viewpoint:
The shift toward recognizing sexuality as an intrinsic part of identity reflects a broader trend of inclusivity and respect for diversity. From this perspective, challenging ancient moral frameworks is part of societal progress.
For the Religious or Traditional Viewpoint:
Those who adhere to ancient texts might argue that their beliefs are grounded in something greater than societal trends—whether divine revelation, natural law, or long-standing cultural wisdom. They may see their stance as a call to uphold timeless truths in the face of changing norms.
---
5. Building Understanding
Rather than framing this as a conflict between modern and ancient worldviews, the focus could be on fostering dialogue:
Mutual Education:
If public figures are expected to educate others about their beliefs, it’s equally important for society to approach these conversations with an open mind, seeking to understand the reasoning behind different perspectives rather than dismissing them as outdated.
Respect for Pluralism:
A truly liberal, diverse society must create space for both progressive and traditional viewpoints to coexist. This doesn’t mean agreeing on everything but recognizing that disagreement is part of a healthy, pluralistic society.
---
Conclusion
The tension between ancient texts and modern morality reflects deeper philosophical differences about the nature of truth and ethics. While public figures have a responsibility to articulate their beliefs, society also has a responsibility to engage with these beliefs in good faith, respecting the diversity of worldviews that coexist in a liberal society.
------
Personally, if something is optional and you refuse to do it, you should not be expected to give a reason.
And seeing how people have responded here when the reason is claimed to be "religious", there doesn't seem to be much of an open mind from people to actually hear the reasons to understand or respect.
This player was then one that brought his religion into the 'issue' as soon as he opened that door the obvious follow up is to ask him to confirm. Probably should have just kept schtum.
The open mind argument is intended to close down any argument imo and is exactly what the religious would prefer, don't question and unquestionably rely on your faith.
Yeah, Guehi (Gay) made it about religion when he wrote 'I love Jesus' on his armband.
If he wasn't making it religious, presumably he was declaring his love for a Mexican pool boy. Which is gay.
https://x.com/essexpr/status/1864650229338824852?s=46&t=aPp6PYv3EpCIXaZLU4Kayw
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if God created everything and yet did not create sexual organs suited to same-sex relationships, doesn't that mean he didn't intend for such relationships to exist, or at least he didn't intend for such relationships to be sexual?
Yell that to the penguins
I mean you could yell it to penguins but probably better to just tell them in a normal voice.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
This player was then one that brought his religion into the 'issue' as soon as he opened that door the obvious follow up is to ask him to confirm. Probably should have just kept schtum.
The open mind argument is intended to close down any argument imo and is exactly what the religious would prefer, don't question and unquestionably rely on your faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The open mind argument 😆 it’s called being tolerant of other peoples opinions.
Sign in if you want to comment
Rainbows and rainclouds
Page 8 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 43 seconds ago
Didn't realise this was such a passionate topic for a lot on here when I opened this thread!
Again playing devils advocate here, for those of you are strongly in support of wearing the armbands, tracksuits etc how do you feel about the below.
A brother and sister both adults both consenting both agreeing never to have child and they wish to marry as they are deeply in love with each other and want to live as a married couple?
Would you support their right to love just as you support the right to love of two gay men? And would you wear and want others to wear armbands etc to celebrate their love to make them feel included along with the rest of society?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re comparing homosexuality to iincest and want someone to honour that post with a serious answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you want to argue otherwise please do. Can you tell me why one love is ok and the other isn't? Both are found in nature with one being way more common than the other.
Unless you want to tell me otherwise? If you truly believe people should be allowed to love whoever they want then can you explain why you'd see issue with one and not the other?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sister was pretty ugly so thankfully never had to cross that bridge. My brother on the other hand....
posted on 5/12/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
Every season the Sun reports a 'gang o' gaaays' are going to come out together 😂
If a PL player at a lower club did come out they would make a fortune, more than they do playing football. They would get all the protection and support too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could set you up on a date with a NL footballer if you like?
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Maximus Decimus Meridius (U11781)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by UmaThurmans_BigToe (U22864)
posted 43 seconds ago
Didn't realise this was such a passionate topic for a lot on here when I opened this thread!
Again playing devils advocate here, for those of you are strongly in support of wearing the armbands, tracksuits etc how do you feel about the below.
A brother and sister both adults both consenting both agreeing never to have child and they wish to marry as they are deeply in love with each other and want to live as a married couple?
Would you support their right to love just as you support the right to love of two gay men? And would you wear and want others to wear armbands etc to celebrate their love to make them feel included along with the rest of society?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re comparing homosexuality to iincest and want someone to honour that post with a serious answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you want to argue otherwise please do. Can you tell me why one love is ok and the other isn't? Both are found in nature with one being way more common than the other.
Unless you want to tell me otherwise? If you truly believe people should be allowed to love whoever they want then can you explain why you'd see issue with one and not the other?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My sister was pretty ugly so thankfully never had to cross that bridge. My brother on the other hand....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He got the looks?
posted on 5/12/24
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
-------------------------
Finally, I can start eating newborns without feeling shame.
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Arnefield RAP (U22951)
posted 32 minutes ago
Murder and rape are also commonly found in nature, can use that as an example as well?
-------------------------
Finally, I can start eating newborns without feeling shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 5/12/24
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And so it should be. It’s all a load of bollox nonsense. Should be treated all the sane, whatever faith, unfounded nonsense that does more harm than good.
posted on 5/12/24
I thought Gruehi's armband gave off Westboro Baptist vibes
posted on 5/12/24
Facking hell spurs
posted on 5/12/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Salah Time. (U23032)
posted 43 minutes ago
If Muslims support or show support for lgbt abcd+++ and there are changes to the law to reflect this then the religion could be discriminated against.
Couple of scenarios (Irrelevant how likely they are)
Scenario 1 an Imam (Religious Teacher) in a mosque comes out as a cross dressing homosexual and starts attending and teaching KIDS this way of life, the mosque in question wouldn't be able to dismiss said person even though it would directly contradict the teaching of the religion.
In scenario 2, a Muslim family run a custom cake shop, a homosexual couple comes in to order a 🍆 cake. The family refuses and the couple sues for discrimination.
These are just two examples and I'm sure there are many others.
Islam teaches you to hate the sin not the sinner. I don't get why people are so outraged that the players choose not to promote something they don't believe in. He hasn't come out and hated on anyone he's just opted to not wear the rainbow armband and just look at the islamaphobic responses and general religion bashing which is so strife on this site.
Anyway keep ALL politics out of football end of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be religion in general that has been attacked rather than just Islam?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Swap Islam for Christianity here and I believe at least one of those scenarios actually has happened. Though I believe it was in the states.
posted on 6/12/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 17 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 7 hours, 33 minutes ago
A Muslim man who is attracted to other men owns one of the biggest Islamic channels on youtube. He doesn't wear rainbows either and will never promote that campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/@BloggingTheology/videos
Choosing not to promote sexual relationships between the same gender, doesn't equate to hating those people, as you can see from the comments on all of the videos on that channel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is going right over your head isn't it.
It's not about one guy and it's not about hating on His religion. It's about the "Religious reasons" bluster, what is it specifically about his religious that prevents him from wearing rainbow tat?
If he's so religious he's making a stand, state the passage in whatever ancient book he adheres to.
Personally couldn't give a f**k about his or anybodies religion but it's 2024, if you're gonna cite religion then open it up to critique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion should welcome critique if believers hold their faith to be true.
My original comment was to clarify that rejecting the act of wearing rainbows isn't inherently bigoted. Just as one doesn't need to wave the "banner of the eagle" (Islamic flag) to support Muslims, one can verbally advocate for the right of LGBTQ individuals not to be harmed without needing to display a rainbow.
In many religious contexts, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, same-sex sexual activities are forbidden, but this does not mean that individuals who adhere to these beliefs harbour hate for those with different lifestyles; rather, their objection is to specific acts or symbols, not to the people themselves.
It's clear from discussions here that some individuals have reservations about certain religious principles, but this does not imply they wish harm upon or seek to restrict the freedom of those who follow these religions in their private lives.
posted on 6/12/24
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
posted on 6/12/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 24 minutes ago
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked ChatGPT is it hypocritical and here what it said:
The statement raises a philosophical and theological question that hinges on how one interprets the nature and will of God. Here are some considerations:
Is it hypocritical?
1. Theological Consistency:
From a theological perspective, those who believe that God is the creator of all things also often believe that God establishes moral guidelines for human behavior. For example, in Abrahamic traditions, God's laws are seen as an expression of divine wisdom, designed to guide humanity toward flourishing.
Therefore, forbidding same-sex relationships might not be viewed as hypocritical if it aligns with the interpretation of divine commandments.
2. Creator vs. Moral Lawgiver:
The idea that God is the creator of all things does not necessarily imply that God approves of all human actions or inclinations. Many religious traditions hold that human behavior should align with specific divine principles, even if those principles may appear restrictive.
3. Free Will:
Many theological frameworks posit that God created humans with free will, allowing them to make choices, including those that might go against divine teachings. In this view, God's creation of individuals with diverse inclinations does not equate to an endorsement of all behaviors.
Is the argument logically sound?
1. False Equivalence:
The statement conflates two distinct aspects of theology: God as creator and God as lawgiver. While God is said to have created all things, that does not mean all behaviors or relationships align with divine intentions as understood in various religious teachings.
2. Cultural and Doctrinal Interpretations:
Different religious traditions and denominations interpret same-sex relationships differently. Some view them as contrary to divine will, while others see them as part of the diversity within God's creation. Whether it is "hypocritical" depends on the specific theological framework in question.
Alternative Perspectives:
1. Progressive Theology:
Some progressive theologians argue that same-sex relationships are compatible with the idea of a loving creator, suggesting that traditional interpretations may reflect cultural biases rather than divine truth.
2. Natural Law Argument:
Traditionalists might argue from natural law theology, suggesting that sexual relationships have a specific purpose (e.g., procreation) and that same-sex relationships deviate from this purpose. They would not see this as hypocritical but as consistent with a divinely ordained natural order.
Conclusion:
Whether the statement is true or hypocritical depends on the theological lens applied. For those who see God's laws as immutable and rooted in divine wisdom, it is not hypocritical to forbid certain behaviors, even if God is the creator of all things. However, for those who interpret divine creation as encompassing and affirming all expressions of human love, the statement may carry more weight. Ultimately, the claim involves reconciling different interpretations of theology, morality, and human experience.
posted on 6/12/24
It's like the old falsehood back in the day that IBM would deliberately create and ship faulty PCs to demonstrate how good their customer service was.
If there was an all creating god they'd create everything good with everyone abiding by their principles. Only then they'd be out a job so they have to create some sin so they can shout, "LOOK!"
posted on 6/12/24
CiC.
Reading that, it seems certain religions choose to define same-sex relationships as a behaviour or sn inclination rather than as sexuality and, imo, highlights the limitations of ancient texts and moralities in our modern, scientifically literate age.
I think the UK as a society is *generally liberal, diverse and accommodating to minorities, IF a player or anyone in public life cites their religion for breaking the norm then its incumbent, imo, on them to explain themselves, not just to justify themselves but to educate the rest of us.
posted on 6/12/24
I put that in to ChatGPT and this is its response:
1. Behavior vs. Sexuality in Ancient Texts
The claim that ancient texts define same-sex relationships as behaviors or inclinations rather than as an intrinsic aspect of identity reflects a key difference between premodern and modern worldviews:
Ancient Understanding of Sexuality:
Most ancient texts (religious or otherwise) did not conceptualize sexuality in terms of fixed identities like "gay" or "straight." Instead, they often addressed specific actions or behaviors that were seen as moral or immoral based on cultural, ethical, or theological principles.
Modern Understanding of Sexuality:
In contrast, modern scientific and sociological frameworks view sexuality as an intrinsic part of identity, influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. This shift in understanding can lead to tension when ancient moral frameworks are applied to contemporary issues.
Reconciling Ancient Morality with Modern Insights:
It’s worth considering whether ancient texts were addressing broader principles of human behavior rather than providing rigid rules for all time. Some argue that their teachings can be reinterpreted to align with modern values, while others hold that these texts remain authoritative regardless of societal change.
---
2. Limitations of Ancient Texts
The suggestion that ancient texts and moralities have limitations in a "scientifically literate age" assumes that moral truths evolve in parallel with scientific progress:
Timeless vs. Contextual Morality:
Supporters of ancient texts might argue that their moral teachings address timeless aspects of human nature, which remain relevant regardless of scientific advancement. For example, principles like justice, compassion, and self-discipline transcend specific cultural or historical contexts.
Critiques of Modernity:
Conversely, critics of modern morality might point out that scientific literacy doesn’t necessarily lead to moral clarity. For example, technological advancements have enabled both positive progress (e.g., medical breakthroughs) and morally troubling outcomes (e.g., nuclear weapons).
Nuance in Ancient Texts:
While ancient texts may reflect the limitations of their time, they often contain profound ethical insights that can still resonate. Whether these insights are adaptable to modern contexts is a matter of interpretation and debate.
---
3. Societal Expectations and Public Figures
In liberal, diverse societies like the UK, there is a strong expectation for public figures to justify their views, particularly when they break societal norms:
Responsibility to Educate:
Public figures who cite religion as a basis for their views are often expected to articulate their reasoning, not only to justify their stance but to foster understanding in a pluralistic society. This is especially important in societies that value inclusivity and diversity.
Challenge of Bridging Worldviews:
However, this can be challenging for individuals who hold religious beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with prevailing societal norms. Explaining a worldview rooted in faith to an audience that values secular, evidence-based reasoning often requires patience, nuance, and mutual respect.
Respect for Difference:
While education is important, it’s equally vital for society to respect deeply held convictions, even when they don’t align with mainstream values. Liberalism itself depends on protecting the rights of individuals to hold and express diverse beliefs, as long as they don’t harm others.
---
4. A Balanced Perspective
Both sides of this conversation have valid points:
For the Modern Viewpoint:
The shift toward recognizing sexuality as an intrinsic part of identity reflects a broader trend of inclusivity and respect for diversity. From this perspective, challenging ancient moral frameworks is part of societal progress.
For the Religious or Traditional Viewpoint:
Those who adhere to ancient texts might argue that their beliefs are grounded in something greater than societal trends—whether divine revelation, natural law, or long-standing cultural wisdom. They may see their stance as a call to uphold timeless truths in the face of changing norms.
---
5. Building Understanding
Rather than framing this as a conflict between modern and ancient worldviews, the focus could be on fostering dialogue:
Mutual Education:
If public figures are expected to educate others about their beliefs, it’s equally important for society to approach these conversations with an open mind, seeking to understand the reasoning behind different perspectives rather than dismissing them as outdated.
Respect for Pluralism:
A truly liberal, diverse society must create space for both progressive and traditional viewpoints to coexist. This doesn’t mean agreeing on everything but recognizing that disagreement is part of a healthy, pluralistic society.
---
Conclusion
The tension between ancient texts and modern morality reflects deeper philosophical differences about the nature of truth and ethics. While public figures have a responsibility to articulate their beliefs, society also has a responsibility to engage with these beliefs in good faith, respecting the diversity of worldviews that coexist in a liberal society.
------
Personally, if something is optional and you refuse to do it, you should not be expected to give a reason.
And seeing how people have responded here when the reason is claimed to be "religious", there doesn't seem to be much of an open mind from people to actually hear the reasons to understand or respect.
posted on 6/12/24
This player was then one that brought his religion into the 'issue' as soon as he opened that door the obvious follow up is to ask him to confirm. Probably should have just kept schtum.
The open mind argument is intended to close down any argument imo and is exactly what the religious would prefer, don't question and unquestionably rely on your faith.
posted on 6/12/24
Yeah, Guehi (Gay) made it about religion when he wrote 'I love Jesus' on his armband.
If he wasn't making it religious, presumably he was declaring his love for a Mexican pool boy. Which is gay.
posted on 6/12/24
https://x.com/essexpr/status/1864650229338824852?s=46&t=aPp6PYv3EpCIXaZLU4Kayw
posted on 6/12/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
100% agree, if you don't want to wear something then that is your choice and nobody should be browbeating anyone into conforming against their wishes.
I don't think that just because you're religious you're homophobic, that's clearly not the case with the vast majority and it's nonsense to claim otherwise.
I don't want to get theological or anything but it's hypocritical to think your God is the creator of all things and also forbid same-sex relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if God created everything and yet did not create sexual organs suited to same-sex relationships, doesn't that mean he didn't intend for such relationships to exist, or at least he didn't intend for such relationships to be sexual?
posted on 6/12/24
Yell that to the penguins
posted on 6/12/24
I mean you could yell it to penguins but probably better to just tell them in a normal voice.
posted on 6/12/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
This player was then one that brought his religion into the 'issue' as soon as he opened that door the obvious follow up is to ask him to confirm. Probably should have just kept schtum.
The open mind argument is intended to close down any argument imo and is exactly what the religious would prefer, don't question and unquestionably rely on your faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The open mind argument 😆 it’s called being tolerant of other peoples opinions.
posted on 6/12/24
200
Page 8 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13