Is anyone genuinely going to boycott?

[shade]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Who said anything about Qatar?

 

I'm talking about the privilege straight people have *worldwide* that they can express their (monogamous) love for another person without the fear that someone, or some government, is going to seek to take their life specifically because of it.

 

NB. though if we are bound and determined to talk about Qatar, that LGBT folks there are subject to legal recourse in cases where straight people are not is privilege for the latter again. Having it be "criminalised, imprisoned or otherwise denigrated" rather than flat out "killed" isn't really the massive step up some folks think it might be.

 

Before I answer this more fully (and believe me, I have some rather strong views on supposedly immutable qualities) I would like an answer to the above question, please. Just to make sure that goalposts aren't being moved and this discussion is in fact happening in good faith.

 

Thanks in advance.

I don't accept the notion that conformity to, shall we say, the historically accepted norms that created the culture is a privilege. The same way I don't accept white privilege as a construct, if a white man goes to china he doesn't have "white privilege", so then what is it, "chinese privilege"? What you're describing is majority privilege, which is essentially part of living in YOUR culture, that's what culture was designed for, why would you construct it if it didn't benefit you?

 

I don't accept that it's a "privilege" per se to be heterosexual, it's the natural outcome of aligning with the historical normalcies that created our culture. The topic of immutable qualities is one we can't have freely I don't feel.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, shade said:

I don't accept the notion that conformity to, shall we say, the historically accepted norms that created the culture is a privilege. The same way I don't accept white privilege as a construct, if a white man goes to china he doesn't have "white privilege", so then what is it, "chinese privilege"? What you're describing is majority privilege, which is essentially part of living in YOUR culture, that's what culture was designed for, why would you construct it if it didn't benefit you?

 

I don't accept that it's a "privilege" per se to be heterosexual, it's the natural outcome of aligning with the historical normalcies that created our culture. The topic of immutable qualities is one we can't have freely I don't feel.

.... because, I don't know, it might be possible for empathy to extend beyond ones line of sight?

 

NB. I'm going to ask, politely, for an answer to the question again - when was the last time that a straight person was killed or even had to feel fear, solely as a product of them being straight?

[shade]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.... because, I don't know, it might be possible for empathy to extend beyond ones line of sight?

 

NB. I'm going to ask, politely, for an answer to the question again - when was the last time that a straight person was killed or even had to feel fear, solely as a product of them being straight?

Apologies, I missed the question. I would have to look for that answer, but of course it's going to be a rare occurrence. 

[when_you're_smiling]

1 hour ago, K1FOX said:

In the UK mate, in Leicester in fact. 
 

Sure they’re discussed but is there a witch hunt on those responsible in the same way there is on Qatar? Is the football community coming together to condemn these things? Does MOTD open with a whole section on these issues? Are players being asked to stand up and call out those responsible? Are they asked about it day in day out in the media? 
 

Thing is if this was to happen maybe we’d see action. Instead the whole western world has gone over to promote LGBTQ+ in a country that has no intention of listening. 

Club’s do look to work with food banks and there’s the likes of Kick It Out, the various LGBTQ+ fan groups and organisations and local charities and organisations in the community, a number of players get involved with. It’s unusual, and therefore newsworthy, when a player goes as far as Marcus Rashford did. I’m guessing you won’t hear too many Qatari players ever criticising their law makers.

 

It’s a fair point professional football struggles to take the moral high ground on LGBTQ+ issues though when there’s almost nobody publicly out.

 

Qatar has spent unprecedented billions upon billions with this World Cup purposelessly to make you think better of it and the regimes that runs it. That’s what sportswashing is. That’s why it’s at the forefront of the conversation and under scrutiny.

 

 

[K1FOX]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.... because, I don't know, it might be possible for empathy to extend beyond ones line of sight?

 

NB. I'm going to ask, politely, for an answer to the question again - when was the last time that a straight person was killed or even had to feel fear, solely as a product of them being straight?

With all due respect to anyone that maybe gay, heterosexuality is something which is recognised world wide as being natural and normal. Men lie with women and this is how the reproductive cycle works. It’d be strange if now people were outlawing heterosexuality which in turn may lead to so called attacks and killings etc. 

 

Homosexuality, again rightly or wrongly is not for me to decide its peoples own choice but it is considered in many places to be unnatural and culturally and religiously wrong so it is bound to cause backlash.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, shade said:

Apologies, I missed the question. I would have to look for that answer, but of course it's going to be a rare occurrence. 

It certainly is. Possibly non existent. Whereas vast parts of the LGBT community deal with that fear and sometimes face death, purely on account of who they are.

 

Speaking personally, a world where that's no longer the case might be a better one.

 

2 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

With all due respect to anyone that maybe gay, heterosexuality is something which is recognised world wide as being natural and normal. Men lie with women and this is how the reproductive cycle works. It’d be strange if now people were outlawing heterosexuality which in turn may lead to so called attacks and killings etc. 

 

Homosexuality, again rightly or wrongly is not for me to decide its peoples own choice but it is considered in many places to be unnatural and culturally and religiously wrong so it is bound to cause backlash.

Three points here:

 

- relationships and sex aren't for the sole purpose of reproduction and I'd thank organised religion for not spouting opinion as fact on the matter.

 

- even if the above were true, I wasn't aware that killing of people exhibiting such "behaviour" was justified as a result. Or that it was justifiable under any BS excuse for cultural phenomena.

 

- appeals to nature are fallacious anyway. Bilharzia, arsenic and extinction are natural, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily beneficial to individuals or species.

 

[westernpark]

12 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

With all due respect to anyone that maybe gay, heterosexuality is something which is recognised world wide as being natural and normal. Men lie with women and this is how the reproductive cycle works. It’d be strange if now people were outlawing heterosexuality which in turn may lead to so called attacks and killings etc. 

 

Homosexuality, again rightly or wrongly is not for me to decide its peoples own choice but it is considered in many places to be unnatural and culturally and religiously wrong so it is bound to cause backlash.

Homosexuality isn’t a choice.

 

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It certainly is. Possibly non existent. Whereas vast parts of the LGBT community deal with that fear and sometimes face death, purely on account of who they are.

 

Speaking personally, a world where that's no longer the case might be a better one.

 

Three points here:

 

- relationships and sex aren't for the sole purpose of reproduction and I'd thank organised religion for not spouting opinion as fact on the matter.

 

- even if the above were true, I wasn't aware that killing of people exhibiting such "behaviour" was justified as a result. Or that it was justifiable under any BS excuse for cultural phenomena.

 

- appeals to nature are fallacious anyway. Bilharzia, arsenic and extinction are natural, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily beneficial to individuals or species.

 

You’ve taken the post wrongly. 
 

My point is that’s the reason why you don’t see attacks on heterosexuals. 
 

On the reproduction point, agreed it’s not the sole purpose of sex however if millions of people weren’t doing it over the years we’d be left with no people.

[K1FOX]

2 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Homosexuality isn’t a choice.

 

Not my place to say whether it is or isn’t. 
 

I’m just saying that many people feel that way towards homosexuality which is why there will always be a backlash to the promotion of it.

[hejammy]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It certainly is. Possibly non existent. Whereas vast parts of the LGBT community deal with that fear and sometimes face death, purely on account of who they are.

 

Speaking personally, a world where that's no longer the case might be a better one.

 

Three points here:

 

- relationships and sex aren't for the sole purpose of reproduction and I'd thank organised religion for not spouting opinion as fact on the matter.

 

- even if the above were true, I wasn't aware that killing of people exhibiting such "behaviour" was justified as a result. Or that it was justifiable under any BS excuse for cultural phenomena.

 

- appeals to nature are fallacious anyway. Bilharzia, arsenic and extinction are natural, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily beneficial to individuals or species.

 

 

Sorry maybe I am being ignorant here but has someone in Qatar been killed for being part of the LGBT community? Where as how many people in the USA (even in the UK maybe) have been killed for being non-white? As for your comment on organised religion - obviously Qatar is a religious state so therefore that is relevant for them and also in their opinion - also factual. 

Edited 24 November 2022 by hejammy

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

39 minutes ago, Line-X said:

1 hour ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Well with a bit of luck more will be aware of it because of the football tournament.

I read a rather peculiar article recently applying the same logic to the vilification of brand Beckham being used to promote the country's tourism

I'm not sure what logic you think I'm applying, but my point doesn't appear to have been interpreted in the way I intended. My bad, I suspect, and a risk one takes when aiming for pithy one-liners. All I was saying is that more people might be aware of Qatar-related stuff; I'm not trying to say that anything justifies anything, or indeed to justify anything myself.

I did suggest it might be a good thing for more people to be aware, and while that is always my instinct, it does occur to me that there's a debate to be had there (now is probably not the time or place, even if anyone wanted to actually have the debate). Is it better to know that your country has been sold from under your feet, or to remain ignorant? I use the term 'your country' although of course it's never actually been 'ours,'* certainly since 1066 and dubiously at best before that, and has in fact only been sold by one set of ruthless rich autocratic bastards to another set of ruthless rich autocratic bastards. So does it really make the least bit of difference?

 

But I digress (see why I tend to aim for the pithy one-liners?).

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

You’ve taken the post wrongly. 
 

My point is that’s the reason why you don’t see attacks on heterosexuals. 
 

On the reproduction point, agreed it’s not the sole purpose of sex however if millions of people weren’t doing it over the years we’d be left with no people.

Yeah, and my point is that particular reason (along with practically every other on this matter) is both irrational, illogical and not indicative of the species we really should be (and need to be).

 

I'm not a fan of irrationality when people are harmed as a result of it.

 

2 minutes ago, hejammy said:

 

Sorry maybe I am being ignorant here but has someone in Qatar been killed for being part of the LGBT community? Where as how many people in the USA (even in the UK maybe) have been killed for being non-white? As for your comment on organised religion - obviously Qatar is a religious state so therefore that is relevant for them and also in their opinion - also factual. 

Please have a look at an earlier response for a reply to that question.

 

Attacks based on race and on this matter are equally repugnant and I don't think it's really beyond a supposedly civilised society to tackle both at the same time.

 

And yep, you highlightone of the critical reasons why organised religion should have no say whatsoever in any state policy anywhere ever with that last part. Irrational dogma allowed to stand as fact and used to craft state policy.

[K1FOX]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, and my point is that particular reason (along with practically every other on this matter) is both irrational, illogical and not indicative of the species we really should be (and need to be).

 

I'm not a fan of irrationality when people are harmed as a result of it.

 

Please have a look at an earlier response for a reply to that question.

 

Attacks based on race and on this matter are equally repugnant and I don't think it's really beyond a supposedly civilised society to tackle both at the same time.

 

And yep, you highlightone of the critical reasons why organised religion should have no say whatsoever in any state policy anywhere ever with that last part. Irrational dogma allowed to stand as fact and used to craft state policy.

So you feel passionately about LGBTQ but are happy to disregard people’s religious beliefs. If you can’t respect peoples religion, why should they respect you being gay? 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

7 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

11 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Homosexuality isn’t a choice.

 

Not my place to say whether it is or isn’t. 

'Not your place?' There is no 'place.' Sexuality isn't a choice, full stop.

I might as well say it's 'not my place' to say whether or not gravity is a real thing.

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

'Not your place?' There is no 'place.' Sexuality isn't a choice, full stop.

I might as well say it's 'not my place' to say whether or not gravity is a real thing.

The same way you believe that, many others believe it is a choice. 
 

People of Qatar and lots and lots of other countries are more than happy with that. Who are we to tell them they have to now change their way of thinking and sacrifice their religion so they can host a World Cup?

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

17 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

I’m just saying that many people feel that way towards homosexuality which is why there will always be a backlash to the promotion of it.

Your use of that phrase says a lot. Nobody's talking about 'promoting' homosexuality (or any other sexualities, or indeed anything at all except tolerance).

[K1FOX]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Your use of that phrase says a lot. Nobody's talking about 'promoting' homosexuality (or any other sexualities, or indeed anything at all except tolerance).

But who decides what that level of tolerance is? Qatar for example have said all are welcome to their country. So what’s the reason for the LGBTQ campaigns? 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

So you feel passionately about LGBTQ but are happy to disregard people’s religious beliefs. If you can’t respect peoples religion, why should they respect you being gay? 

When one holds institutional power orders of magnitude greater than the other, then this is a moot question.

 

My lack of respect, or even the lack of respect by any and/or all LGBT people or advocates, for organised religion *when used in state policy* (that last part is important btw, personal belief when not applied to the state is something I'm totally fine with) means next to nothing in the grand picture. Organised religion *when used in state policy* (again, important) means rather more.

 

Power structures matter.

[hejammy]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, and my point is that particular reason (along with practically every other on this matter) is both irrational, illogical and not indicative of the species we really should be (and need to be).

 

I'm not a fan of irrationality when people are harmed as a result of it.

 

Please have a look at an earlier response for a reply to that question.

 

Attacks based on race and on this matter are equally repugnant and I don't think it's really beyond a supposedly civilised society to tackle both at the same time.

 

And yep, you highlightone of the critical reasons why organised religion should have no say whatsoever in any state policy anywhere ever with that last part. Irrational dogma allowed to stand as fact and used to craft state policy.

As someone else has mentioned, you cannot be one way for the rights of one community and then completely disregard the beliefs of another - calling religion irrational is in some ways the same as some people saying homosexuality is unnatural. Let people be the way they want to be and the beliefs they want to have. If you do not affirm to that community - then there are 100s of other communities which will welcome you with open arms. 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 minute ago, K1FOX said:

The same way you believe that, many others believe it is a choice.

Well apparently some people believe the world is flat. They're wrong. There are probably people who believe the sun goes round the earth. They're wrong. There are people who believe that everyone with brown skin should be kicked out of the UK. They're wrong.

And if there really are people who believe sexuality is a choice, then they're wrong too.

[hejammy]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

When one holds institutional power orders of magnitude greater than the other, then this is a moot question.

 

My lack of respect, or even the lack of respect by any and/or all LGBT people or advocates, for organised religion *when used in state policy* (that last part is important btw, personal belief when not applied to the state is something I'm totally fine with) means next to nothing in the grand picture. Organised religion *when used in state policy* (again, important) means rather more.

 

Power structures matter.

But a state based on Christian laws is fine is it?

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

Just now, hejammy said:

As someone else has mentioned, you cannot be one way for the rights of one community and then completely disregard the beliefs of another - calling religion irrational is in some ways the same as some people saying homosexuality is unnatural. Let people be the way they want to be and the beliefs they want to have. If you do not affirm to that community - then there are 100s of other communities which will welcome you with open arms. 

Religion is almost literally irrational. It's built on faith, which is the opposite of reason. Irrational is not a pejorative term, it has a precise meaning.

[hejammy]

Just now, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Religion is almost literally irrational. It's built on faith, which is the opposite of reason. Irrational is not a pejorative term, it has a precise meaning.

You could argue to a certain point that Science is based on faith - the faith of the scientist - faith that the parameters used are correct - scientific "fact" changes all the time - what was once perceived as fact can be replaced with a new "fact". So whatever your thoughts on Religion - wouldn't it be acceptable that you should respect the fact that some people believe in it and not ridicule it? 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 minute ago, hejammy said:

But a state based on Christian laws is fine is it?

Eh? Or wtf, as I belive the kids are saying these days?

Literally nothing they have said suggests that! Indeed they've gone out of their way to be very clear that they believe no organised religion has any place in state policy or law.

[K1FOX]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

When one holds institutional power orders of magnitude greater than the other, then this is a moot question.

 

My lack of respect, or even the lack of respect by any and/or all LGBT people or advocates, for organised religion *when used in state policy* (that last part is important btw, personal belief when not applied to the state is something I'm totally fine with) means next to nothing in the grand picture. Organised religion *when used in state policy* (again, important) means rather more.

 

Power structures matter.

So let’s get this right - you go into an Islamic country and tell them they’re wrong but if anyone tells you you’re wrong they’re homophobic? 
 

I know you’ve not said that in words but in effect that’s what it means