St. Maximin

I’ve been keen to defend him (we’ll go some extent) because I’m from that kind of background and have family and friends who are both Christian and conservative, so feel I can offer a different perspective on how they think. Bit odd I know as I’ve been agnostic for years and don’t like a lot about religion. Said way more than I expected mind, but I keep disagreeing with people and vice versa

My opinions (like I said we don’t know) but I agree with all this apart from the last part. I genuinely think he does agree with the campaign, hence why he wore it. It’s a very weird thing to do if not hence why he’s allowed not to. He’s seen other players like Morsy refuse to wear it and doesn’t support that, but he’s also keen to show he still holds his Christian views despite arguing for inclusivity in football. The alternative view I think also is that he feels (rightly or wrongly) threatened by rainbow campaigns in general - I know view this from being in those circles years ago. I mean he wrote that he loves Jesus/Jesus loves you. That’s a positive message (especially the latter) and Christianity teaches to love everyone like Jesus did, regardless of their sexual orientation or otherwise. Jesus didn’t go round preaching about homosexuality. If he was quoting certain verses in Leviticus that’s a different matter, but he isn’t. I could be wrong of course, but honestly think he’s just an idiot rather than a homophobe and until we have evidence he meant some of the things people have speculated he does, it’s needless attacking him so much.

I can honestly think of multiple possible reasons he did what he did - some sound more honourable than others - but we have zero evidence either way for any of them, homophobic or not. IMO though there’s another fair possibility he’s done it because he both doesn’t support refusing on religious grounds like some players, but is still religious and is keen to point out that’s in his identity while still supporting the cause. It’s very weird to wear in any form if you don’t support it (and honestly I doubt any player doesn’t support it). I honestly think it’s bizarre people are so keen to think the worst in someone, purely because of a gesture he’s done in one week of several years playing professional football and coming across a model pro. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s choice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appreciate there’s context we don’t know about it. That happens all the time when someone famous does something silly, but we choose to be understanding if we want to be.

Oh come on, you can engage with all my points you know . He wrote he loves Jesus ffs. It’s not hard to see why he might feel a bit uncomfortable over the whole thing if you’re willing to consider the context and complexities. Either that or Jesus was far more vocal about homosexuality in football then I realised.

He said this today: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyj2e3dg14o.amp To be honest I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s been an idiot and he’s continued to handle it badly, but some of the outrage is crazy and based on assumptions. All this “he clearly doesn’t support the campaign”, “clearly doesn’t object to footballers being abused being for gay” stuff. We’re so quick to make judgments on what at times very silly young men think because they aren’t wearing an armband, taking the knee or wearing a poppy, rather than figuring out there may be more context. We have that with McLean, yet apparently there’s no leeway here. I sound like a broken record here, but he comes from a Christian background and holds biblical views that he, rightly or wrongly, might feel puts him in a conflicted position. He also may well be aware that the rainbow flag can be used politically and this may also not make him feel comfortable as a Christian, so wants to stress he doesn’t support some of those causes that are separate to homophobia in football. So as a result of those combined, he might feel the need to approach it differently. That doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean he’s right in his understanding of the campaign, but it shows there might be some more complexities here entirely unsurprisingly. Like I keep saying, nowhere does being asked to wear a poppy mean you’re celebrating British armed forces killing people in NI. Can’t we just accept these nuances rather than just make all these inferences from thinking the worst in someone? You can still think he’s a complete idiot for what he’s done but he maybe, just maybe, isn’t quite the disgusting evil homophone he’s made out to be purely because he mentioned loving Jesus on his armband. Still bit of a weird thing to do mind.

I still think that's making assumptions. He may well still support both and has his own foolish way of going about it. If it was so clear his religion was more important and that he didn;t agree with the armband, he could do what the other players have done and not wear the armband at all, and still write that he loves Jesus on his shirt. And anyway we're talking about identity and religion is still very much an important part of his. I get that we see things differently here but I think it's a bit of a pointless debate until we know the true intentions behind something. He's a young man who is in an uncommon position within football and handled it badly (I think we all agree that much). He might end up regretting it after all the criticism and abuse he's got over social media, based on assumptions.

Mate that's my whole point. He feels there's a conflict of interest, but people are missing the bit about how the flag gets used and interpreted differently by different groups, with some seeing it as a political symbol. People have their own circumstances and attribute their own understandings to a gesture, rightly or wrongly. I really don't need to keep repeating all this tbh. I'm not saying he's got the right understanding of it. But then you could say the same about James McLean and the poppy, or taking the knee being political etc. A lot of these debates are pointless and we gain nothing by thinking the worst of people. People's actions towards a group say a lot more than whether or not they participate in a gesture they've been told to do.

I know, it's a stupid move. I've not denied that. I have just been trying to add a bit of perspective here rather than a lot of the unnecessary assumptions that have been made. I've mentioned tonnes of times that the rainbow flag is interpreted differently, including within Christian and Muslim circles, of which he is in. In this case it's about inclusion, in others it's political. He may well be wary of the latter, so is feeling a bit conflicted and uncomfortable about everything. Jesus said nothing about gay people in football so to make the assumption he thinks they have no place in the sport is quite ridiculous really when you see the bigger picture. As for the latter, I'm not a Christian so I don't know what it's got to do with me. Of course I think gay people should be included and I'd have no issues wearing it. I also have reservations over anyone being forced to take part in any gesture tbh - the outcry over this being one of the reasons.

I don’t know tbh. He’s clearly a bit of an idiot if he thinks that’s a good idea, whatever his reasons. In this case I’m just saying there’s no evidence he’s saying he doesn’t agree with gay people in football. Same with multiple other cases of footballers refusing to wear it. The fact he’s still wearing it suggests maybe he does agree with more than that Ipswich player, for example, but wants to make clear he still holds his Christian values - to an extent they might still be compatible here. Saying he loves Jesus says nothing about the inclusion of gay people in football as clearly that’s nothing Jesus allegedly spoke about.

If only I was doing that! I'm not defending their views, just trying to explain why people think in such way and what goes on in people's minds, because nothing is ever as simple as a lot of people make out. If that's a bad thing then each to their own

What I've realised on this forum is I really need to stop trying to understand and explain the views of people I don't agree with. Might just be easier after all to brand them all homophobes and racists.

Yeah but the whole point is the Bible objects to something they do, rather than who they are. Obviously when it comes to identity this becomes a whole lot more complex, but no one ever said this is a black and white issue. As for the latter, it's not about rules but whether something is right or wrong. Christianity teaches that everyone does sinful things and many of those things I think are backward. But ultimately people do follow those teachings and often try and accept them even if they don't make sense to them, which can often leave them in quite a conflicted position. It's something I've been trying to say all along, which is why I find the "if you think this is wrong then you're a homophobe" a pretty tiresome and simplistic argument.

Seriously, I need to stop bothering here tbh. Like I said, I don't know why he did that and it seems like a silly move, but it might well come from his own conflicting opinions or concerns at how he might look in his community or whatever given the alternative usage of the rainbow flag that I've discussed previously. I don't know and it's not possible to say without him saying anything. Maybe we should just accept people rightly or wrongly interpret things differently. What I can say, as before, is there is absolutely zero no evidence that he intended to 'basically tell gay people that he doesn't agree with them being a part of football' and therefore we shouldn't think the worst of people, foolish as they might be.

Well only if that applies to everyone really. You don't have to be religious to think what people do is wrong but still treat them with love and kindness. I appreciate it's a very sensitive issue for understandable reasons, but even in Christianity surely there are loads of other 'sins' that this could be applied to. Like I say though, it's a complex issue and often just shows the internal conflict people have to deal with. I don't like those views whatsoever, but I think it's pretty reasonable to accept the complexities of it rather than just shoving everyone under the homophobic tag just for a view they might silently hold about certain behaviours.

No it isn't. You said he wanted to 'basically tell gay people that he doesn't agree with them being a part of football'. There's no evidence of this at all. I've said multiple times and can't be bothered to repeat myself that he might be dealing with his own conflicts given how the rainbow flag is often used against Christians, or whatever. Maybe it was a message to his Christian community. Tbh I don't really know what goes on in his head, but it's silly to draw inferences of some of the worst views from these. Bit like saying a certain Irish footballer wants to show his disrespect to the families of everyone who died in war. Fwiw I do agree it was dumb as fuck. But the fact (unlike others) he's still wearing it suggests quite possibly he still agrees with the cause as far as it relates to football. No idea why the opposite is being inferred.

The claim was that he intended to 'basically tell gay people that he doesn't agree with them being a part of football'. There was literally no evidence of this whatsoever. If that was even fairly obvious, we wouldn't even by having this debate and he'd be getting a long-term ban. He's brought his religion into this for whatever silly reason (I don't really get it), but writing he loves Jesus on his armband says nothing about his views on whether gay people should be allowed to play football, unless there's another verse in the Bible about that I don't know about.

100%. Like I mentioned earlier, when I say ‘wanted’ I meant they still do think it’s a sin but that’s because they felt they had to, rather than because of deep-rooted hatred of gays. I can tell you of so many conversations we had I’ve the years of our discomfort over those passages, but also that we were taught not to treat people differently (yes, sadly that does still happen) and see everyone as a sinner etc. I feel very uncomfortable with this “if you believe it’s a sin you’re homophobic” view as it’s so simplistic, ignoring all the complexities of what people actually think. It’s an attack on many of my family and friends, who likely think that, but also would treat homosexuals with love and kindness - perhaps much more so than many people who wear a rainbow flag on their arm. They just happen to hold traditional views about something being sinful behaviour, along with many, many other things and they accept they’re all sinners too. The ones that did imo make stuff about gay marriage a bigger thing were more doing it out of insecurity and feeling persecuted rather than rather than hating gays. It’s a complex issue and best accept these things rather than putting everyone in a box.

It would be, if that's what he did. But there's no evidence that's his intentions whatsoever

Go on then, please explain. I notice you removed the sentence before that sheds some light on it. Also the stuff I wrote about nature vs nurture is pretty key too - people are conditioned to think in such a way and perhaps they aren't seeing the bigger picture as a result, rather than just being homophobic people. Also the vast majority just happen to see it as a sin, along with many other things in the Bible, including things they themselves know they do. Granted there are no shortage of homophobic religious people in religion, but those are the ones you should go after and not the people who quietly hold a silly opinion but don't treat people differently because of it.

Yeah I clarified below I phrased that wrong as 'practicing homosexuality' is a sin rather than simply being gay. But that doesn't mean it's bourn out of homophobia. People are brought up to believe the teaching is true and as I have said earlier, people don't actually want to think that but have to because they feel the Bible is the word of God and unlike other things it;'s mentioned many times in the Bible including the New Testament, so seen as something important. If that was the only sin they cared about then yes it's bourn out of homopohobia, but that isn't the case. These things are way more complex than people make out and like I said I grew up in a conservative Christian environment (that I have thankfully left) so I'm in a good place to comment here on what goes on in people's heads.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. I was saying a lot of old things in the Bible are still deemed sinful as well as practicing homosexuality. This includes straight sex outside of marriage. If they decided to ignore all the teachings apart from the stuff about homosexuality then that would clearly be a case of homophobia, but evidently that’s not the case. People believe what they’re told anyway. If you’re raised up in an environment that says one sin matters more than the other, maybe that has something to blame rather than everyone taking part being homophobic. Nature vs nurture etc.

I think I phrased that wrongly actually - the Bible says lust is a sin, but that’s any lust and not just homosexual. Any sex outside of marriage was also deemed sinful in the OT and still is today. Same with many, many other ‘sins’. Homosexuality is repeated often in the Bible and mentioned in the NT too. None of the Christian views about it being sinful I agree with, but the idea that people care about that and not many other sins is purely due to homophobia isn’t remotely true.

I agree with this in general, but who said Guehi doesn’t want to show support? The fact he’s wearing it suggests maybe he does. In fact nothing else in his career suggests he wouldn’t condemn homophobic abuse towards gay footballers. He just also happens to be Christian and may well be dealing with his own personal conflicts over how rainbows are interpreted and how he feels he should view certain biblical passages. Perhaps as a Christian he is also wary of how he might be seen in his community. That doesn’t mean he can’t support the cause still. I do think it’s a bit of a weird and foolish way of handling the situation mind, whatever his reasoning. I’m certainly not advocating it. But his intentions behind it might not be what it seems.

This isn’t remotely true mate, sorry. The Bible doesn’t even say fancying someone of the same sex is a sin.

I think you’ve proven my point mate, that stuff gets interpreted differently, regardless of whether it’s correct. He may have (wrongly) assigned a different meaning to it and you’ve made assumptions about his attitudes as a result, despite there being zero evidence. He never said he had an issue with those things and he’s still worn the armband, so for all we know he supports the cause but is also cautious about how the rainbow flag can be used politically against Christians. And as a Christian in a Christian family and community it’s not hard to see why he might feel conflicted, rightly or wrongly. People don’t care about that part though. If we’re going to bring in official meanings for things, well that brings us back to the poppy argument. ‘The left’ are very quick to stick it to ‘the gammons’ for saying McLean is an IRA supporter by acknowledging his own personal reasons, but there’s nothing in the poppy message about supporting the killings on his estate. Anyway, as has been suggested already, whether people choose to participate in a certain gesture doesn’t mean they really care about it (or even know what the meaning is). The behaviour of a player towards a community says a lot more. It’s like people are looking for issues and want to think the worst of people.