The not-so Magnificent 7
- Thread starter silvereagle
- Start date
Definition of homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
A jersey. A piece of clothing
Come on
They did not wear a rainbow coloured jersey.
A jersey. A piece of clothing
Come on
Lack depth how? I am interested in where you are going here
I believe in a society where we make compromises for the greater good. It is the same reason why I follow a speed limit rather than doing what I feel. This means there are times when we all need to compromise and go beyond the "both sides" argument.
Homophobic views have a detrimental effect on young gay people. I am not sure how this is confusing or even up for debate.
I am so over this issue which has been blown up and manipulated depending on the arguments being generated. These guys wouldn’t wear the jersey and didn’t play. Tolerance is not about forcing someone to embrace the concept. It is ironic when they criticised because in effect those criticising them are committing conduct even more aggravated than what they did by the criticism itself.
The difference is my intolerance for them is not causing harm to people like homophobia does. They are more than welcome to believe what they want however there are consequences to their actions.
What are the consequences to believing in inclusion of all people? Remind me how the sky fell in when we finally legalised same sex marriage?
It is not possible to "two sides" everything, and I am amazed that people can still draw that false equivalency after all this discussion
The problem isn't with the consequences of "believing" in inclusion or not ... (although, I'm pretty sure the 7 have never said that gays shouldn't be included in RL anyway) .. the problem is in trying to force other to believe what you do.
We are seeing in Iran the result of one group who have gone down the path of forcing their beliefs on others ... it doesn't work. .. It doesn't work for their side of the arguement .. and it won't work for your side.
As long as there is no physical or actual discrimination ... people are entitled to believe what they like ... thought police are the tools of authoritarian totalitarians ... goose stepping to the beat of a dictators drum
Technical Coach
Bencher
The debate has never been about ones "views" that we are all entitled to have, the debate is over the "promotion" of views and by doing so forcing the hand of others who don't agree with such views to take a stand and out themselves in the "workplace".
In the same way gays and lesbians in the past would not have appreciated having to out themselves in the workplace if they were not ready to do so. The workplace should be a neutral environment to allow all people to work, retain their beliefs,views, sexuality in privacy but all get along under "The Law".
Ones views doesn't mean one is incapable of showing respect in everyday interactions, i don't have to like an individual in order to interact with them in a way that allows both of us to lead a life of freedom and opportunities.
Conversely there are many views against Religions done so in a disrespectful divisive way(even in these forums) that too can have a "detrimental effect" on people so i don't see why one group should be elevated over another.
On top of that the LGTBQ+ and any other letter that is pretty much guaranteed to be added to this group in the future, is too fluid and broad of a group/ definition that some people may not agree with certain aspects of now or in the future. Why should one show support for a definition that is not even fixed and way too broad for some.
I could go into the stats but it will just lead to certain types being offended so why bother, but it is pretty obvious that Bisexuals will have a higher rate of suicide compared to gays or lesbians for example.(no research required to work that out)
Yes i would love all people to have as near to zero suicide rates as possible regardless of who you are and i sympathize with the struggles that people with a more fluid or not straight sexuality go through on a daily basis, but i don't believe promotions dealing with the complexities of life are necessary or even helpful in the sporting domain, that is for Govts, The Education System and families to absorb, reflect, nurture and debate on.
Many will say "people choose their faith" not their sexuality but what right do they have to enforce and push that view on people of faith in public(many believers will say they are born with faith), in the same way Religious types have no right to dictate to the LGTBQ+ that it is a sin to be of that sexuality or their sexuality can be fixed.
The belief in a God has been around for a very very very long time and there is research in a God Gene taking place so why don't both sides just keep their opinions and views to themselves due to the risk of offending the other, along with not preaching such views from both sides in sport or the workplace----we all need to get along and work on ourselves in our own time.
highlandeagle
Where eagles soar
High horse calling out homophobia? Very glad to be doing so.
As for hypocrisy I welcome seeing a study that shows how asking people who follow a religion with antiquated ideas to accept people who have no choice over their lifestyle causes the same impact as homophobia does on gay kids.
Technical Coach
Bencher
You keep saying "accepting", where here or at the game has "accepting" not been happening.
Do i accept there are varying forms of sexuality = Yes
Have i respectfully worked with and socialized with(knowingly) of different sexualities and got on fine with respect = Yes
Are all forms of sexuality playing in the NRL = Yes
Are all forms of sexuality welcome to attend games as a supporter = Yes
The issue is the forced "promotion of views" that opens a can of worms now whether you like it or not.
What is the promotion aiming to achieve, acceptance and respect of sexuality has already been achieved in the population at large, are they now aiming to influence peoples opinions and views also through promotions, that is a form of propaganda.
I have every right to not befriend certain types based on sexuality, looks, views, character, religious beliefs or non beliefs etc etc no matter how shallow, detrimental or limiting it appears to outsiders looking in and it certainly isn't the clubs job to form or mould the opinions of it's supporters.
I show respect to everyone i've worked with, socialized with and interacted with that is all i have to do and we should all be that way,(and it is no effort whatsoever to be that way to form a good society) beyond that it is up to the individual who they want to associate and be friends with.
Technical Coach
Bencher
I didn't even vote on this issue, as long as the rules don't force churches to include same sex marriages it's all good.
Doesn't mean i view such relationships as a marriage but i don't feel i should push my "ideals" onto others or the definition of marriage to my liking, i do agree legally such relationships should have the same right as marriages though(but i think that was already the case prior to legalizing but i might be wrong)
So i should of probably voted Yes but i just didn't care enough either way, it makes no difference to my life or views.
Please stop thinking ... we have enough problems ..
Who knows what they’ll do. Interesting if the club keeps doing it, I suspect over a couple of years there’ll be fewer players pulling out, and certainly more open discussions about the issues?
I all for Mr Penn making money and prosper
but not at the expense of upsetting and dividing People.
Even better, why not just put a clause in the contract for all players that they need to have a rainbow tattooed on their foreheads?
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
