mate, I can read) it's just new information in this topic
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Football and Homophobia
- Thread starter Papercut
- Start date
mate, I can read) it's just new information in this topic
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I've yet to see you give me a cogent reason why homosexuality is a cause for decline at all.
I'm from Norway, we can handle more growth thanks to our stable economy and available space. Like with most wealthy nations (and areas) throughout history workers come here from areas that are worse off. I think that's pretty natural. We're not in a need for "more babies" to progress and I think that's true for most nations in the world. With the exponential growth in world population it's a matter of when, not if, we reach a point where a continued increase in population will be directly detrimental to human happiness (if that threshold hasn't been reached already).
You obviously know more about Russia than I do, so for you guys I trust your opinion. This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphans_in_Russia would indicate that there's at least room for a certain amount of married homosexuals that don't have children, but instead adopt within your country. Surely having these children grow up in homes would be better for them and for your nation. You could have hundreds of thousands more children grow up with a better education, better help and resources and much improved mental health available to fill the voids in your society you talk of.
However, even if I accept that there's a need for a population increase beyond what immigration can do for a country I don't see that as an argument that homosexuality is immoral any more than I see having 2 kids instead of 3 as immoral in those circumstances. I don't think you would say "why should we welcome people that will only have 2 children in our society" and the two are comparable imo.
chancer
Gudni Bergsson
Whoever it was at Stonewall that turned this great idea into a complete PR and logistical disaster should be sacked tomorrow morning.
It is such a mess - that stupid, stupid slogan and the Paddy Power commercial tie-in - that it is beyond belief that anyone in a position of authority at an organisation as reputable as Stonewall actually signed off on it. Out the door with whoever that is, and then wait till next year and give the campaign another go. Which means another year lost on this issue. Someone should lose their job for so damaging their cause and organisation.
It is such a mess - that stupid, stupid slogan and the Paddy Power commercial tie-in - that it is beyond belief that anyone in a position of authority at an organisation as reputable as Stonewall actually signed off on it. Out the door with whoever that is, and then wait till next year and give the campaign another go. Which means another year lost on this issue. Someone should lose their job for so damaging their cause and organisation.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Depends really. Stonewall are getting more publicity for themselves than they would have if the clubs had just backed the plan, when the reporting focus would be on PL stars wearing pretty colours and the actual issue. The choice of slogan seems designed for controversy rather than a blunder.
I have to agree with the statement from another anti-homophobia group, Football v Homophobia:
Imagine if an anti-racism campaign mentioned something about eating fried chicken or watermelons. It would be rightly condemned for being tasteless.
Edit: on reading the full statement, perhaps Stonewall are dupes after all. Paddy Power invited FvH to participate in the campaign and they refused. So it could be that Paddy Power came up with the whole scheme and got Stonewall involved rather than the other way around.
I have to agree with the statement from another anti-homophobia group, Football v Homophobia:
Imagine if an anti-racism campaign mentioned something about eating fried chicken or watermelons. It would be rightly condemned for being tasteless.
Edit: on reading the full statement, perhaps Stonewall are dupes after all. Paddy Power invited FvH to participate in the campaign and they refused. So it could be that Paddy Power came up with the whole scheme and got Stonewall involved rather than the other way around.
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
chancer
Gudni Bergsson
The harsh truth is that there's no favourable reading of Stonewall's conduct here and their CEO's position is entirely untenable. They botched the slogan horribly (really, really, really horribly), and they were so naive that they didn't realise having a betting firm involved would scupper club buy-in. Those aren't two small misjudgements, they are howlers.
And those howlers have huge ramifications. First, you've got gay people probably mortified at all the fuss, and embarrassed that a bum-sex pun was used to promote equality. That's a real world consequence effecting real people. On top of that, Everton and Joey Barton are in a difficult position in that they've supported the campaign only to now find they're in the middle of a factional fight and a storm over a tasteless slogan. For Stonewall to have put their friends in that position is utterly unforgivable. And because they'll have to let the dust settle on this fiasco before trying it again, they've set their cause back perhaps years. Finally, and worst of all, this episode isn't likely to encourage any footballers to come out, which was the point of the thing in the first place. Holy Mother of GHod that is a litany of entirely avoidable, self-inflicted catastrophe.
If I were on the board of Stonewall I'd expect a resignation on Monday morning from whoever is the most senior person to have signed off on this (presumably the CEO). That person is simply not competent enough, on this evidence, to run an important organisation like this.
I meant that there is no plausible explanation for discriminating on the grounds of biological facts such as biological sex (distinct from 'gender' and sexual orientation) or skin colour. But there is a rational argument to say homosexuality is deviant behaviour rather than normal and acceptable behaviour, and this lies in its partly social roots. For example just as people can blame drug addiction/criminality/sexual fetishes on a 'poor upbringing', they can also blame homosexuality (whether correct or not). You can't blame someones sex or skin colour on their upbringing, they just are as they are. I was just saying that because the issue is not so clear cut, people can more easily justify discrimination, not that I endorse such discrimination.
Again I was referring to biological sex and skin colour when I said 'these attributes'. I actually was agreeing entirely with you by saying that while these attributes are fixed and rooted entirely in genetics, sexual orientation is much more a 'nature-nurture' debate, but again that opens it up to being seen as entirely 'nurture' (whereas you cannot argue this for sex or skin colour) when looked at by the wrong people, in the wrong way, or in the wrong context, which means it becomes far easier to argue it is 'right' or 'wrong'. (Powerful Romans were seen as normal and were highly regarded irrespective of their homosexual and often paedophilic tendencies, while homosexuals and paedophiles are commonly far more despised today).
Apologies if I wasn't clear, as you may have gathered, I can ramble on a bit...
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Yes we do. Mankind loves war. That's why he can't help himself and always ends up waging it.
As for the pedophilia comment I don't think a single person would disagree with you. Who has said this vile act if anything other than disgusting?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Cheers for clarifying Pandy.
Drug abuse and criminality are poor comparisons imo.
If, for the sake of argument, we accepted that homosexuality was primarily a result of non-biological/genetic influences then a much better comparison would be with religion. Something very few people think anyone should discriminate based on and something that most likely has at most a rather small genetic component.
Since you asked and since aksolotl's description wasn't that clear, accepting that this is going off topic...
(According to wikipedia articles) there's an interest group in Holland advocating the acceptance of pedophilia that was at first shut down by the courts, but then that ruling was overturned.
I said that: "In the end freedom of speech trumps just about everything and as much as I disagree with their message I won't disagree with their right to advocate their opinion."
To expand ever so slightly, this is based on two things:
1. Freedom of speech, it should be granted also to people advocating things most people completely disagree with. This because it's so vital to our freedom.
2. Shutting down an organization like that will, in my opinion, not accomplish much of anything other than satisfying (understandable) knee jerk reactions.
If someone wants to debate this issue further it's probably better if a new thread is started in random to stop this from going further off topic.
Drug abuse and criminality are poor comparisons imo.
If, for the sake of argument, we accepted that homosexuality was primarily a result of non-biological/genetic influences then a much better comparison would be with religion. Something very few people think anyone should discriminate based on and something that most likely has at most a rather small genetic component.
Since you asked and since aksolotl's description wasn't that clear, accepting that this is going off topic...
(According to wikipedia articles) there's an interest group in Holland advocating the acceptance of pedophilia that was at first shut down by the courts, but then that ruling was overturned.
I said that: "In the end freedom of speech trumps just about everything and as much as I disagree with their message I won't disagree with their right to advocate their opinion."
To expand ever so slightly, this is based on two things:
1. Freedom of speech, it should be granted also to people advocating things most people completely disagree with. This because it's so vital to our freedom.
2. Shutting down an organization like that will, in my opinion, not accomplish much of anything other than satisfying (understandable) knee jerk reactions.
If someone wants to debate this issue further it's probably better if a new thread is started in random to stop this from going further off topic.
Last edited:
jts1882
Dean Richards
I was reading something in the Guardian yesterday (and earlier reports) about a prominent figure (leader?) of the German Green party who once advocated consensual paedophilia.
Early report: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/28/kateconnolly.theobserver?guni=Article:in body link
Recent: www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/14/green-party-germany-paedophiles-80s
Yesterday: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ge...en-jurgen-trittin-regret-paedophilia-pamphlet
I found it interesting reading because clearly some things that we tend to universally agree with now were not as clear cut several decades ago. The revelations about some of our show business figures make a similar statement.
Early report: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/28/kateconnolly.theobserver?guni=Article:in body link
Recent: www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/14/green-party-germany-paedophiles-80s
Yesterday: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ge...en-jurgen-trittin-regret-paedophilia-pamphlet
I found it interesting reading because clearly some things that we tend to universally agree with now were not as clear cut several decades ago. The revelations about some of our show business figures make a similar statement.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
"Consensual pedophilia" is an oxymoron imo. Kids can't consent to something like that.
I realize that morals and ethics change over time, but how anyone in something seen as modern day could argue that kids can give their consent to sex with an adult is beyond me.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
I have a problem with this consensual thing, but that's mostly because some 'children' are fully aware of the consequences and fully able to make the decision at the age of 14, however some aren't fully able until the age of 18+.
The age of consent seems to be such an arbitrarily chosen number, on the other hand i don't really see another way around it.
I just see it as apriori thing - mankind has imperative for expansion. This is general line. So some factors which are negative for expansion considered as immoral. Drugs, perversions etc. yes, in some way expansion conflicts human happiness - but expansion generate tension which generate progress. And stagnation leads to disappearance in the end. How to survive with population increase? Get new green revolution, develop new territories with new technologies, colonize Mars.
for nations stagnation means to be swollen sooner or later.
As for orphans - you'll never let raise a child in pedophile or incest family, and we considered homosexuality as the same. Adoption ban is one the worst acts of Putin regime though. But we can't support adoption in homosexual families.
Look, some things that were considered as perversions in the past now normal in Europa - homosexuality etc. so we see some signs about pedophilia, tendency to legalize drugs, what will be normal in the future? we prefer to keep more traditional values.
I see discussion goes off-topic and I see we can't understand each other in full measure. I just hope you could see logic in my position, if not - let it be my fault.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Values in Russia haven't changed in the last decades?
How long have what you describe as "traditional values" been the norm? Not only talking about views on homosexuality, but morals in general. No change in views on divorce, abortion, contraception, racial issues? Nothing?
You realize that your "traditional family values" arguments could have been used, and have been used, against most moral progress that has been made in the world? Racism? Women's rights? Look at your arguments in the context of some of these traditional cases of bigotry, which side of the argument would you be on?
what you describe as moral progress turning for moral decay in some aspects. Progress is not always positive. IMO. feel free to support freedom of speech for pedophilia. We won't.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
And how do you separate which parts of "traditional values" would constitute progress if removed and which would constitute decay?
Any answers to any of my questions? Particularly interested in hearing your views on how long "traditional values" (including other issues) have been the norm in Russia.
I have already pointed out that if someone wants to discuss the freedom of speech issue brought up here I would be willing to do so in another thread (random would be a good place for a thread like that). Defending my position on this issue is not done in a single sentence or even a single paragraph and I would rather not take this thread further off topic.
It's generally accepted that heterosexual relations are more traditional than homosexual. heterosexual family is more traditional than homosexual one. What's problem with that?
I think there is no moral progress at all - there are different cultures, religions, nations. Your absolute confidence in rectitude of only western way of life is so... narrowminded?
As for Russia - after the USSR collapsed we got moments of real freedom turning to chaos. homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993. But last two decades orthodox and islamic religions are rising and bringing back their values. My attitude? I support decriminalization, don't support homosexual propaganda among kids, I am an atheist - but that's reality in Russia now.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I was questioning your concept of traditional values in general, not if heterosexual marriage is currently considered more traditional. Hence why I said "Not only talking about views on homosexuality, but morals in general. No change in views on divorce, abortion, contraception, racial issues? Nothing?" I'm asking how stable or set your "traditional values" really are? What's the period in time you're referring to as the ideal? When was this period of "traditional values" properly accepted and implemented in your culture?
"No moral progress at all. Just different cultures." Moral relativism defined. Why object to homosexual marriage if you're a relativist? It's just a different culture, no worse or better according to your view. If there is no moral progress how can you have moral decay?
Call me narrow minded if you want. You're not alone in believing that not being a relativist means that you're narrow minded. I disagree with this definition, but for the sake of argument I'll use the term with your definition for now.
I think that all cultures have something to learn from a lot of other cultures. I have only presented my views on a small number of issues in this thread, if you think that means that I have absolute confidence in the western way as the only way that's on you. But that doesn't mean that there is no right or wrong. And neither do you, by the looks of things. Can you not say with narrow minded confidence that a culture with your views on pedophilia is better than a culture that condones or promotes it? Can you not say with narrow minded confidence that a culture with your views on racism is better than an apartheid regime? Can you not with narrow minded confidence say that there are better, more moral, ways to run a society than say the Stalinist approach? If you can not, then what good are your morals?
As an atheist you might have heard of Sam Harris? I don't agree with everything he says, but he puts forward a to me pretty convincing argument regarding moral relativity. Presented in part in this video from a TED talk he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
milo
Jack L. Jones
That's a straw man argument
But who decide what is wrong or right? where is the line? the line between moral progress and moral decay? why do you think only western civilization can draw this line? Obviously the line is moving depending on culture, nation, epoch etc.
And I agree that traditional (any in fact) values is changing and western is changing and are you sure you like this changes in the future? I reflect the present day but I understand the possibility of changes. I keep my values but I know about many other points of view and I recognize the cultural background, history and tradition behind it. Am I relativist?
What do you want? - to set some moral values and to force everyone in the world to accept it?
Sorry, my English is not fluent enough for this video, in fact Sam Harris is not very popular in Russia. I've read some info, really interesting, but I don't get what argument you are talking about, could you define it in some words?