St. Maximin

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.

I think this involves assumptions and shows a lot of things here can be interpreted differently by different people - both the meaning of an armband (or another gesture, such as wearing a poppy or 'taking the knee') and the intentions and views of someone who refuses to participate (or does so in a different manner in this case). I don't really see how his refusal to wear a rainbow armband can 'only' be interpreted that way in the slightest, unless you want to think the worst of people. It's been mentioned before he is Christian and his parents are highly involved in church etc. So clearly it might be a rather conflicting issue for him (hence the fact he has multiple, possibly conflicting messages). Maybe he, like many other religious people, rightly or wrongly, interprets the rainbow as a political symbol associated with a lot of anti-religious views (which tbh, it often is). Maybe some others simply interpret it is a show of support against discrimination and abuse towards homosexuals in football. Whatever the 'correct' interpretation is, there's pretty understandable reasons not everyone sees these things in the same way and no reason to think he actively encourages discrimination. To me it's not much different to James McLean not wearing the poppy for personal reasons - he has every right to hold those views, but clearly it comes from his own interpretation of it. The view that players like Guehi would love to 'ignore that gay people exist' and 'turn their backs and pretend that homophobia/bullying aren't a life-threatening problem for gay athletes' is pretty baseless here. The fact he hasn't spoken about it says a lot - clearly people are making up their own ideas of what he thinks. As I said before, from experience I think I'm pretty qualified to comment here (unlike other things I definitely have commented on!) due to my upbringing - I don't know a single Christian who would do the above, yet for all we know they have exactly the same views as Guehi and just haven't been pressurised to wear a rainbow. In fact I'm pretty sure they would be some of the first people I know to show actual support for someone abused because of their sexuality, which goes far beyond simply wearing a rainbow flag. But they might also have some Biblical views about morality, so homophobic scumbags I guess.

Ah fair, sorry I misread that . Tbh I think this is one of the reasons why I'm not particularly keen on people being strongly encouraged to take part in such gestures. The discussions can easily become political and someone's refusal can be easily misinterpreted or misreported, especially when they may actually share the same views as many other players over the matter.

I think this is true and unfortunately people on contrasting sides are pretty happy to contribute to the tribalism. If you do or don’t do something or vote for a certain party et al, you are a homophobe or a racist, rather than understanding why people are holding such views and the complexities of a lot of the issues.

Yeah, or maybe done something far more explicit. Genuine instances of hatred towards homosexuals in football are obviously a big problem and should be addressed with zero tolerance. This doesn't look like one.

Thing is, that's not what Guehi is doing. There is no evidence whatsoever he thinks the LGBTQ community are inferior. Clearly he's made his interpretation of the rainbow flag that might differ to others, but clearly other people have made their own interpretation of his intentions.

It actually says that everyone is a sinner and gay people are no worse than straight people, but gay sex is a sin (not that all the followers think like that). I've mentioned before I grew up Christian and also think organised religion is ridiculous, but most people don't just happen to hate gays because of their beliefs. A lot of them, quite possibly Guehi here, feel compelled to follow the Bible and might even do it reluctantly, but just accepting they have to. I didn't know anyone who actually wanted to believe gay sex was a sin, let alone hated gays and I've known hundreds of Christians, so I'm in a pretty good place to comment here. As always with these things some of the reactions are ridiculous, including on here. I do think Guehi is foolish for how he's acted, but he'd still be getting stick for just not wearing the armband altogether. Ultimately, people can interpet the meaning of it differently - for some it may just be about anti-discrimination in football, whereas for others it might be something more political and therefore I can understand why followers of Abrahamic religions feel it's incompatible with their beliefs even if it's just down to their interpetations. Why should they be forced to wear something they feel goes against their personal beliefs? Many footballers have quietly not taken part without making a fuss yet have still been made out to be nasty homophobes - it's a far cry from that rugby player explicitly sharing his views on social media. It's like people just don't want nuance and room for subjectivity here. The supposedly tolerant people are very quick to put people in the racist/homophobic/Islamophobic/anti-semitic box without recognising their personal reasons. Funny how people sneer at "the gammons" for getting upset that James McLean doesn't wear a poppy (which he has every right not to, due to his own personal reasons), but that approach doesn't apply for religion. Doesn't want to wear a rainbow flag? Homophobe. Doesn't want to take the knee? Racist. Doesn't want to wear a poppy? IRA supporter.

PSR was way before we were taken over - was introduced in 2013/14 - so I don’t think you can say they were brought in specifically to stop us. City’s separate case about associates party rules is different and I am not disagreeing on our relevance there. Ultimately if City get away with this, then it’s a slap in the face to everyone else (not just the likes of Everton and Forest), who have had to make major sacrifices out of fear of punishment, while the team that gets all the success gets away with it. I don’t think that’s remotely fair, whatever we might think about the PL and red cartel.

Well exactly; it's a reputation that is based on a very limited sample. My point is we can make our judgments on other sets of fans, but given we are in a far better position to comment, clearly our reputation is not accurate. Therefore I'm sure (to some extent at least) it works both ways. Also from my (very limited) experience, I haven't got that view of Liverpool fans tbh. I don't think we're in a position now to say this is a 'stitch up'. FFP rules have been in place way before the cartel voted in PSR and these charges date back to 2009. The charges allege multiple and consistent breaches over a long time in various ways - PSR only seems to be mentioned explicitly in 7 of them. And I think we should all care because the rules have had a major impact on everyone, with only smaller clubs harmed so far, so why should it be fair they get punished while the most successful team gets away with it? Not like they still haven't been able to spend crazy money legally.

Aren't Newcastle fans supposed to be 'deluded'? No smoke without a fire, but I don't really get this hatred of other fans when we've only come across a tiny proportion of them and clearly the wrong'uns stick in our minds more (no doubt there's plenty mind, but they're a huge fanbase). Got no arguments with people having an issue with the 'red cartel' and PL here. But the rules still apply to everyone and there are some pretty serious allegations against City when you factor in the number - it's not really fair if teams like Forest and Everton get punished and they don't. And ultimately we are quite clearly held back by these rules too, so naturally if Man City get let off I really hope that is on the basis of innocence rather than just having a really good lawyer or the like. Whether many of these rules should exist is of course a good question worth discussing, but still a different matter.

Thought this for ages. People don’t like the ‘red cartel’ clubs because of ‘the fans’, when at least they have enough fans to always comfortably fill a stadium. And if people don’t like them, they will be far less annoying when they’re actually winning stuff, hence why no one has as big an issue with Man City fans. I don’t remember it unbearable when Liverpool won the league in 2020. Plus as a neutral it’s really boring seeing the same team win every year. And City might also be a bit corrupt.

Maybe I’m not following him as closely in recent times (haven’t seen as much live football this season), but where has the view he’s not a centre mid come from? I get that for the balance of the team he shouldn’t necessarily play there, but the reason he turned his career round here and got himself into the Brazil squad was because Eddie played him there and he became our player of the season.