LBGT Campaign

[The Crab]

Turns out Sheffield United were a communist front group all along then.

Well who woulda thunk it???

 

[Booker4]

What point? That because stuff sucks harder elsewhere we should forget about doing anything at home? Can you imagine applying that line of thinking to anything else? Forget the NHS, at least we don't die of malaria. Forget old people, life expectancy is way above what it is in the third world.

We are capable of both caring about gay marriage rights in Northern Ireland and also the abhorrent treatment of the LGBT community overseas too.

It wasn't a post by you Poker, it was by Finchley, page 3 I think.

 

[PokerBlade]

ISIS doesn't represent the average Muslim does it?! So having a pop at ISIS is hardly having a pop at Islam as a faith as a whole. Of cause I've heard of the people you've mentioned and often people that criticise Islam are shot down in flames (Trump deserves that most times to be fair!) but Christianity is definitely fairer game. Every day I go to work I hear someone saying JESUS CHRIST and that's just a minor thing. If someone blasphemed against Allah and a Muslim heard it, I think the person who said it would be reprimanded. That's just one comparison.

And no I haven't gone to my HR, before you suggest I should have, because I don't want to go down that line. I could speak to them personally and say I'd rather they not do it, but I know no offence is meant.

So when you said you'd never heard a Muslim called a bigot you meant aside from all the examples of it happening. Okay. I have none of those to add.

 

[PokerBlade]

It wasn't a post by you Poker, it was by Finchley, page 3 I think.

And my response was to the the both of you and anyone else who thought it was a remotely sensible thought.

 

[Nade]

I agree with privilege theory and all the rest of it, but do take issue with the flippant way in which it's easily used to shame people by making assumptions about their levels of 'privilege' in general.

For example, how about a white male who was regularly raped as a child, and can’t hold down a job because of the anxiety issues which stem from that experience? Yeah he’s a white male, but is it appropriate to put a circle around his entire existence and label him ‘privileged’? How about Baby P? Was Baby P, who was tortured and eventually murdered at the grand old age of 18 months, a ‘privileged white male’? Is that appropriate or not?

Thus stuff is useful, yeah. But you can't just look at someone and decide that they live a life of privilege. Of course they have privilege - basically everyone in the UK has some of some kind - but whether or not that is relevant or appropriate isn't something you can know.

As a male I am less likely to be raped. As a white person I am less likely to have a mental health condition. Theae are genuine privileges largely arising from inequality in society, however they become of absolutely no relevance whatsoever if, as it happens, I have been through those things anyway. The example I used above was a real client I've had (minor details changed for anonymity) and I don't think it'd be appropriate to consider him privileged because these things were 'less statistically likely' to happen to him. They HAD happened to him and to reduce him to his demographic and make a judgment about him would be to completely belittle the horrible shit that he had been through.

Class is often overlooked with this stuff also. I think an Indian woman living in Chelsea and working as a lawyer is probably a fair bit more privileged that some white bloke whose got himself a zero hours contract at a screwfix warehouse in Stoke on Trent. But whatever, that's by the by.

My point is that we're talking about general trends. We shouldn't make judgments about people on an individual level. Privilege theory is best applied on the level of social policy rather than on an individual level.

As for the campaign, yeah I totally agree with it. It's not doing any harm, and football has a horrendous history with this kinds of stuff so I'm quite happy that an effort is being made to counter that.

 

[dc_blade]

Eight-page thread about the design of corner flags at a football stadium. Nice one.

Who's the snowflakes again?

 

[Bladepicker]

I'm a Christian Bladepicker but definitely not a Britain First type, not sure where that comes from?! I am also a leftie but also not a fan of the LBGT campaign, but that usually gets me labelled as a bigot. It's funny that I never hear a Muslim or a Jew also told they're a bigot too?! You noticed that too?!

I think I answered that question in another reply Booker. I never insinuated that all Christian’s are Britain First type nutters – that’s you painting a picture with my words that wasn’t my point at all.

As pointed out elsewhere there are plenty of people (me included) happy to criticise Islamic ideals and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to modern Western values.

Out of interest, is your dislike of the LGBT campaign in anyway linked to your faith?
To be more direct, are you opposed to things like gay marriage as a result of your beliefs?
Do you view being gay as a sin that gay people will go to hell for?

I'm not being obtuse - I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint on these issues as a Christian.

 

[Booker4]

So when you said you'd never heard a Muslim called a bigot you meant aside from all the examples of it happening. Okay. I have none of those to add.

I'm saying that its very rare in comparison to Islam to hear Christianity labelled as bigotry in reference to its opposition to same sex marriage or transgender. You only have to watch the recent programme on Philip Scoffield's show, that had a teacher on the show that was ridiculed for his opposition to transgender. You can quote the people you've mentioned that generally have an issue with religion as a whole but I have no doubt that people feel easier to criticise Christianity than they do over Islam and Judaism. If you think the're treated the same than I'm sorry that isn't my observations.

You are right that there are people that have criticised Islam. I can't deny that, but the attitude in this country is definitely different when you listen to radio or tv in reference to Islam than it is Christianity. If you disagree with that then, I think you live in a different country to me.

 

[Booker4]

I think I answered that question in another reply Booker. I never insinuated that all Christian’s are Britain First type nutters – that’s you painting a picture with my words that wasn’t my point at all.

As pointed out elsewhere there are plenty of people (me included) happy to criticise Islamic ideals and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to modern Western values.

Out of interest, is your dislike of the LGBT campaign in anyway linked to your faith?
To be more direct, are you opposed to things like gay marriage as a result of your beliefs?
Do you view being gay as a sin that gay people will go to hell for?

I'm not being obtuse - I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint on these issues as a Christian.

Fair enough mate. Simple answer mate, rather than me answering the points on the board is read the Bible yourself then tell me what you think. How's that for you?

I'll answer one of them though. The last question do you view being gay as a sin that gay people will go to hell for?

My answer: No.

 

[PokerBlade]

I agree with privilege theory and all the rest of it, but do take issue with the flippant way in which it's easily used to shame people by making assumptions about their levels of 'privilege' in general.

For example, how about a white male who was regularly raped as a child, and can’t hold down a job because of the anxiety issues which stem from that experience? Yeah he’s a white male, but is it appropriate to put a circle around his entire existence and label him ‘privileged’? How about Baby P? Was Baby P, who was tortured and eventually murdered at the grand old age of 18 months, a ‘privileged white male’? Is that appropriate or not?

Thus stuff is useful, yeah. But you can't just look at someone and decide that they live a life of privilege. Of course they have privilege - basically everyone in the UK has some of some kind - but whether or not that is relevant or appropriate isn't something you can know.

As a male I am less likely to be raped. As a white person I am less likely to have a mental health condition. Theae are genuine privileges largely arising from inequality in society, however they become of absolutely no relevance whatsoever if, as it happens, I have been through those things anyway. The example I used above was a real client I've had (minor details changed for anonymity) and I don't think it'd be appropriate to consider him privileged because these things were 'less statistically likely' to happen to him. They HAD happened to him and to reduce him to his demographic and make a judgment about him would be to completely belittle the horrible shit that he had been through.

Class is often overlooked with this stuff also. I think an Indian woman living in Chelsea and working as a lawyer is probably a fair bit more privileged that some white bloke whose got himself a zero hours contract at a screwfix warehouse in Stoke on Trent.

My point is that we're talking about general trends. We shouldn't make judgments about people on an individual level. Privilege theory is best applied on the level of social policy rather than on an individual level.

As for the campaign, yeah I totally agree with it. It's not doing any harm, and football has a horrendous history with this kinds of stuff so I'm quite happy that an effort is being made to counter that.

There are all sorts of competing "privileges". You can take a look for the "black feminism" movement, largely in the US, where they have made a point that being a woman and black comes with a set of particular set of issues that are distinct from the general experience and require attention separate to the general feminist movement. There are all sorts of examples like that. "Male privilege" exists in relation to "class privilege" and it isn't immediately obvious (nor do I think playing the relativism game is useful) to say whether one upper-class woman is better off than one particular lower-class man. The point is that they will both enjoy privileges they don't necessarily recognise and that the other is not subject to. The important thing is whether those constructs exist on a social level and how they impact individuals. Both are shaped, in different ways, by their privilege and deficit.

I do think you're absolutely right that there's a problem with the term "privilege" and it's that when you tell your hypothetical man from Stoke that he's "privileged" he would be on some level right to dismiss that out of hand. It's certainly a concept I was resistant too, and it sounds pretty stupid to the average working class person. The problem the left faces is with this kind of rhetoric.

 

[Darthblade]

Someone will bring up Corbyn ​

Good god no ...... we don't need that leftie moron in a sensible debate .......

UTB & FTP

 

[PokerBlade]

Fair enough mate. Simple answer mate, rather than me answering the points on the board is read the Bible yourself then tell me what you think. How's that for you?

I'll answer one of them though. The last question do you view being gay as a sin that gay people will go to hell for?

My answer: No.

I won't pretend to have read all of the Bible (I ain't reading through who begat who) but I have read large parts. I've read a lot of parts of religious text and tried to put them in context.

I don't want to dodge the question, but my answer is that I don't have a strong opinion on hell itself. I do think that homosexuality is a sin, Biblically speaking.

Edit: Sorry, this one definitely wasn't for me.

 

[Bert]

Eight-page thread about the design of corner flags at a football stadium. Nice one.

Who's the snowflakes again?

The thread started because Bert questioned why, on the one hand United were supporting Transgenders yet they wanted to know which of the two sexes you were when registering online.

 

[Booker4]

And my response was to the the both of you and anyone else who thought it was a remotely sensible thought.

Quoting a few well known celebs doesn't disprove that, as a whole, that there is a different approach to other religions than there is Christianity. That's my view and you can have a look for yourself on the net regarding this, I won't bore you with copying articles on here. I'm not alone in this view, although you might say only Christians think that Christians are treated differently! My view is different to yours but that's fine by me, as long as I am not shot down in flames for it - unless I'm being racist, homophobic - which I don't believe I've done.

I stuck my neck out as a Christian, as I have done on here before and therefore I know that people will disagree with me. However the whole LBGT and religious debate is very complex and its probably left for a more appropriate forum etc. Not sure if you agree here?

 

[Bladepicker]

Fair enough mate. Simple answer mate, rather than me answering the points on the board is read the Bible yourself then tell me what you think. How's that for you?

I'll answer one of them though. The last question do you view being gay as a sin that gay people will go to hell for?

My answer: No.

Fair enough - I have read parts of the bible but not all of it to put it into any context so I won't comment on that - only to say the bits I have read do not read favourably when it comes to homosexuality.

I think it's great many members of the church have interpreted this differently in context and even allow gay vicars as a result - however I do know there are vast swathes of the church still well against this and view homosexuality as a negative act due to their interpretation of their faith. I would say those people are bigoted.

 

[snootyfenooty]

However the whole LBGT and religious debate is very complex and its probably left for a more appropriate forum etc. Not sure if you agree here?

Herein lies the problem. This is still a forum and it's not against rules to debate this subject (apart from it being in the wrong part of the forum). If you don't agree with every word of the LBGTs then these people want to hang you out to dry. Provided you are not being insulting then this is plain wrong.

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

Well, there's them with open, generous or inclusive minds, and there's them with closed, defensive or exclusionary minds.

 

[Barney]

What about transgender cats and dogs who aren't even allowed into the ground.

They'd be allowed in if they identify as humans.

 

[PokerBlade]

Quoting a few well known celebs doesn't disprove that, as a whole, that there is a different approach to other religions than there is Christianity. That's my view and you can have a look for yourself on the net regarding this, I won't bore you with copying articles on here. I'm not alone in this view, although you might say only Christians think that Christians are treated differently! My view is different to yours but that's fine by me, as long as I am not shot down in flames for it - unless I'm being racist, homophobic - which I don't believe I've done.

I stuck my neck out as a Christian, as I have done on here before and therefore I know that people will disagree with me. However the whole LBGT and religious debate is very complex and its probably left for a more appropriate forum etc. Not sure if you agree here?

Now we're shifting the goalposts. You said you hadn't heard a Muslim called a bigot for their beliefs and so I gave you a list off the top of my head to show that's clearly not true. If the point is, now, that Christianity is treated differently to Islam in the UK then I gladly concede. But in the context of that different treatment you also have to acknowledge roles of the Anglican Church, the religiosity of our Head of State, bishops in our parliament. Yes, general blasphemy against Christianity is treated differently to blasphemy against Islam in many contexts, but Christianity (at least particular denominations) hold greater privileges and wider acceptance, so to some extent it's treated differently because it IS different.

You're right that the nature of homosexuality in Christianity is a long discussion and I don't mind avoiding it if it doesn't come up. There's a lot of scripture, citations, and context, that needs to be examined. And even if I think my interpretation of the Bible is the "right" one, it doesn't say anything about what you personally believe. And if you're a respectful and tolerant person I take no personal issue with your religion.

 

[PokerBlade]

Herein lies the problem. This is still a forum and it's not against rules to debate this subject (apart from it being in the wrong part of the forum). If you don't agree with every word of the LBGTs then these people want to hang you out to dry. Provided you are not being insulting then this is plain wrong.

Let's not talk about this in the abstract. What is it that if you disagree with you'll get hung out to dry for?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Let's not talk about this in the abstract. What is it that if you disagree with you'll get hung out to dry for?

If you go back through this thread you'll see I've been taken to task on several occasions. Read them yourself, I'm not repeating myself.

 

[PokerBlade]

If you go back through this thread you'll see I've been taken to task on several occasions. Read them yourself, I'm not repeating myself.

The only "point" I've seen you make was that if we have an LGBT campaign we should also have an anti-fracking campaign. And then it was made clear that those two things are nothing like each other, so I'm at a loss as to what sensible ideas you're scared to speak.

 

[Barney]

What's the actual point anyway? Whichever side of the fence you are on, nobody is going to change their mind because the corner flag was multicoloured.

 

[Booker4]

Fair enough - I have read parts of the bible but not all of it to put it into any context so I won't comment on that - only to say the bits I have read do not read favourably when it comes to homosexuality.

I think it's great many members of the church have interpreted this differently in context and even allow gay vicars as a result - however I do know there are vast swathes of the church still well against this and view homosexuality as a negative act due to their interpretation of their faith. I would say those people are bigoted.

What have I started! Totally my fault, I know! Its split the church in the UK this issue. In my opinions its very sad, but I understand people see it differently. The Bible, in my view is clear that same sex relationships are not ok (which is definitely the same view point as Islam), but clearly many Christians interpret this differently, and see same sex relationships as fine, providing they are married as man and woman can be.

I don't want to say anymore because this wasn't my point, and someone will quite rightly say if you want to debate the merits of same sex relationships, than do so on a more appropriate forum, and I do agree with that. You'll find loads on youtube that debate both views. Hope that helps.

 

[snootyfenooty]

The only "point" I've seen you make was that if we have an LGBT campaign we should also have an anti-fracking campaign. And then it was made clear that those two things are nothing like each other, so I'm at a loss as to what sensible ideas you're scared to speak.

Read a bit further on.

 

[Booker4]

Now we're shifting the goalposts. You said you hadn't heard a Muslim called a bigot for their beliefs and so I gave you a list off the top of my head to show that's clearly not true. If the point is, now, that Christianity is treated differently to Islam in the UK then I gladly concede. But in the context of that different treatment you also have to acknowledge roles of the Anglican Church, the religiosity of our Head of State, bishops in our parliament. Yes, general blasphemy against Christianity is treated differently to blasphemy against Islam in many contexts, but Christianity (at least particular denominations) hold greater privileges and wider acceptance, so to some extent it's treated differently because it IS different.

You're right that the nature of homosexuality in Christianity is a long discussion and I don't mind avoiding it if it doesn't come up. There's a lot of scripture, citations, and context, that needs to be examined. And even if I think my interpretation of the Bible is the "right" one, it doesn't say anything about what you personally believe. And if you're a respectful and tolerant person I take no personal issue with your religion.

I did shift the goal posts, well observed! I'll admit to that Poker! Lol! I think I'll just leave it here, I've said what I want to say regarding Christianity and the original OP was about the LBGT movement in football. I hope you don't mind I withdraw (hopefully gracefully) from this, as I've said all I want to say really. There is loads of decent debates on the net on this, many on you tube for those that prefer a video, as opposed to reading documents, and you'll find both pro and anti LBGT view points from Christians, and stuff on why I believe Christians are treated differently to other religions in this country.

I think I'll end with, that I totally get that Christianity is historically the official religion of the UK and therefore Christianity represents religion as a whole for many, that disagree with the Bible on issues like this, but as I said, other faiths such as Islam and Judaism have the same stance but I have noticed a difference in approach to other faiths.

 

[BladeInIreland]

Your understanding is incorrect, women are in general paid 10% for the same roles as men on average but your comments around men being unfairly favored are laughable.
Power has come above prejudice, and men have had all the power, hence why the system is unfairly rigged.
Guys trying to counter that argument by picking at ways they believe women have it better instead of seeing and discussing the privilege they get is as pathetic as bringing up Islam as some sort of counter to the pain and suffering the Christian church has caused though its teachings. If there are valid points (and the paternity argument isn't) then it's something to be challenged, but it doesn't invalidate the original issue, which is in this case that women do not have equal rights in the workplace.

Why can't people just accept they have an unfair leg up with others in society due to absolutely no right they've earned, and they seem to want to defend the status quo rather than trying to make it fair for all.
Equal rights isn't about eroding what you have, it's about getting the same for everyone else, in that they're treated just as fairly as you are, and ensuring they're just as much as part of society as everyone else. You see is as unfair to you.
This isn't Women or Gay privilege that's being asked for, it's just equal rights. Privilege would be to have them in all positions of power for a few thousand years and dictating to the rest of us how we must run our lives.

I'm open to being proven wrong so can you provide the information to back up your claim that women are paid 10% for the same role, Same hours and same experience?
How is that laughable? When it comes to children women are undoubtedly favoured over men.
I 100% believe things should be equal, I'm yet to see proof it's not. I've never witnessed a woman being disadvantaged in the work place, nor have I heard any stories of it from people around me. Yet I'm expected to go along with the story it is widespread. Obviously there's bound to be something every now and again but to act like discrimination against women is the norm is absurd.
I and most men I know never got a leg up from anyone. To say we got a leg up because were men is unfair as I don't know about you but iv had to work bloody hard.

 

[Bladebri]

Someone will bring up Corbyn ​

Tyler did earlier post 15

 

[Sean Thornton]

Tyler did earlier post 15

Bring up? I thought he said string up?

 

[SalopianBlade]

The thing is, there are people who use gender and sex interchangeably in conversational language. And that's fine for most uses. It's just not the usage that people are referencing when they refer to gender as a social construct. Mistaking the two is equivocation, not some abstract philosophical position.

Compare the roles expected of men and women in 1817 to 2017. Compare the roles expected of men and women in modern Britain to modern Saudi Arabia. Now, it's not what I'd call a "philosophical position" to say that those roles are all dramatically different for each of those societies. It's documented and abundantly evident. It's those changing roles and expectations that other people are terming "gender". And if you don't label those roles "gender" then I don't know what word to use but we surely need one if we're to have a conversation about any of this.

Actually, biological sex isn't even a consistent thing. It's constantly evolved with our growing understanding anatomy and biology.

That the meaning of words change over time, that societal norms differ across geography and history; that's not really disputable.

I'm not sure you need to create this word 'gender' to explain what you just explained very clearly.

Biological sex seems to be consistent to me. You are either male or female. There may be a very small number of people born with a condition which means that identification is not possible but this is rare.

Biological sex determines whether you are male or female, not the way you feel.

That's the philosophical position that has been held for all of history, until a few short years ago when our enlightened superiors found out it's actually the way you feel, not what's between your legs.

They also found out that there is a thing called sexuality and gender.

It's clearly a new set of beliefs about human nature. Believe it if you want but don't make the club fly the flag.