Marc Guehi

[St. Maximin]

32 minutes ago, J7 said:

I actually hate what’s going on here. It should be an optional thing for one week or something. Those deciding to wear them should be actively making a decision to do it to show support. Because of the way the Premier League play it, with the media then pointing fingers and trying to get debate going around it, it just means that the statement is NOT wearing it, rather than people wearing it to show support. I’ve no idea what Bruno thinks and if he’s actually showing support for example.

 

I have no issue with what the Ipswich lad is doing. Nobody should be forced to show support for anything. I do think Guehi is being a bit of a prick though. Just don’t wear it if you don’t want to show support. It’s petulant and pathetic. 
 

Anyway, the most annoying thing here for me is because it looks like this campaign is being forced on players rather than it being a choice, it becomes another one of these culture way/identity politics issues. It’s hardly a wonder there’s a backlash to this kind of thing when people are being shamed for not toeing the line expected of them. 

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. 

[McDog]

Just now, St. Maximin said:

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

 

 

I think there was one line in the whole book that *could* be interpreted as "That's naughty". It is not spelled out. The church also constantly moves the goalposts too. Didn't the Catholics after hundreds of years threating people with "Limbo" if they were not baptized then the Pope said you could still end up in heaven. Which is it?

[McDog]

Have to change the title thread and I'm as bad as anyone. Well, maybe not quite.

[St. Maximin]

7 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I think there was one line in the whole book that *could* be interpreted as "That's naughty". It is not spelled out. The church also constantly moves the goalposts too. Didn't the Catholics after hundreds of years threating people with "Limbo" if they were not baptized then the Pope said you could still end up in heaven. Which is it?

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. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

That’s right, it’s about adultery.  Which is why all churches were so pro-gay marriage.  They had a problem with it being outside marriage because of what the Bible said.  Been to any gay marriages in church recently?

[BlueStar]

7 hours ago, Pablo123 said:

Guehi can do whatever he wants. If people choose to get offended, then that's their problem. 

 

People can say whatever they want about Guehi's behaviour, and if people get offended, that's their problem. 

[St. Maximin]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That’s right, it’s about adultery.  Which is why all churches were so pro-gay marriage.  They had a problem with it being outside marriage because of what the Bible said.  Been to any gay marriages in church recently?

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. 

[Jackie Broon]

8 hours ago, St. Maximin said:

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

 

There are obviously a lot of christians who interpret the bible to say that practicing homosexuality is a sin. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm not religious and not straight, but it's clearly some people's interpretation, and choosing to.interpret it that way is bourn out of homophobia.

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

It is Christianity's excuse for its innate homophobia that I'm referring to.  The standard argument by Christians who don't want to sound like bigots is 'oh, the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin - just sex outside of marriage'.  Then it refuses to allow same-sex marriage - meaning that any homosexual couple are living in sin as they are living a sexual life outside of marriage.  It is moral cowardice.

[Disco]

An OG and this. Fair play to him trying to get the Saudis on side and intent on lowering his fee. The man is gasping for a move north. 
 

:safety:

[Heron]

Who'd have thought story books would be open to perception... 

 

 

[Nobody]

7 hours ago, St. Maximin said:

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

Howay man

[St. Maximin]

8 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

There are obviously a lot of christians who interpret the bible to say that practicing homosexuality is a sin. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm not religious and not straight, but it's clearly some people's interpretation, and choosing to.interpret it that way is bourn out of homophobia.

 

 

 

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.

[St. Maximin]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

Howay man

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.

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by St. Maximin

[BlueStar]

Gonna shout hermaphurb at him next game just cos it's a fun word to say in Geordie. 

[Dr Jinx]

19 hours ago, Pablo123 said:

"This cunt" how fucking disrespectful. Bringing negativity because of his Christian beliefs in a supposed Christian country. You sound like a complete and utter wanker

 

Yes, this cunt! Scribbling a message over a pride armband to basically tell gay people that he doesn't agree with them being a part of football is a cuntish move.

 

If i'm a wanker for believing that then so be it.

[Dr.Spaceman]

"Hey folks, welcome to bible studies."

[Dr.Spaceman]

4 hours ago, Heron said:

Who'd have thought story books would be open to perception... 

 

 

 

As someone who goes to church every Sunday this is exactly what I think their original intention was, stories that are open to perception. Anyone who lives 100% by the teachings in the bible is a fucking mental case.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Dr.Spaceman

[St. Maximin]

34 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

 

Yes, this cunt! Scribbling a message over a pride armband to basically tell gay people that he doesn't agree with them being a part of football is a cuntish move.

 

If i'm a wanker for believing that then so be it.

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

[KingArthur]

22 hours ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

 

 

Really? I was raised a lutheran and know a bunch of people who hate gays and think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, shouldn't have same rights etc.

 

And of course people interpret the Bible differently. Some don't do it all but just cherry pick what they want to believe in. 

 

Guehi could say his religion says every human is a image of God and he accepts all kind of people, but he does not want publicly to wear that armband. Or something. (which would contradict his statement though..)

Never mind what he does, it is still surprising how many deeply religious (Christian) people there are in the Western countries. Guess it will take a bit longer for this to change still.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by KingArthur

[Stal]

Wasn't religion kind of brought about to make people do sensible things? In this example; lust is bad and you'll go to hell when what they wanted to say and mean is "stop sleeping around to spread STDs". People aren't going to listen though enmasse unless you have some reason for them to. Your soul will be tormented in hell was seen as a pretty hefty deterrent (even if it couldn't be 100% effective). There's a good reason about folks in the middle east not eating pork too and it's entirely based in practicality. Source for this IIRC was a cracked.com article years ago.

 

The problem comes about when someone with selfish and/or misplaced thoughts gets into a spot of religious power who then wants to interpret the teachings in their own way for the benefit of themselves and whatever bigoted belief they wish to make the people live by. The people then trot it out, ahem, religiously.

[Superior Acuña]

A long drawn out transfer saga AND prompting a discussion on human rights, religion, bigotry and freedom of speech - it's like he's trying to have the longest NO thread.

[OverThere]

If Guehi is able to string a sentence together, maybe he should clarify his intent, unless he has brain cells enough to be deliberately vague.

[J7]

32 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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

Well he didn’t write on his socks or his shirt, did he. He’s deliberately chose not to clarify it either, despite clearing making his own statement. Again, this is different from just choosing not to wear it which should be perfectly fine. Nobody should be forced to actively support something. Guehi has done something different. 
 

I actually don’t think any action should be taken against him as the whole campaign is a farce, but people have a right to judge him for actively deciding to do what he has done.

[Dr Jinx]

26 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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

 

The evidence is scribbled all over the armband. "I'm being made do this so this is my little protest" vibes. And that's not a reach.

 

Like i said before, we have a group of fairly good eggs in this squad and regardless what some of them may or may not think in private - they don't do what Guehi did.

 

I don't want that anywhere near our club. Putting whatever point he was trying to make aside, it was dumb as fuck and opens up all sorts of questions about his maturity, tolerance, intelligence and leadership.

 

Hypothetically, he comes in for 50m+ and is an England regular, kids are going to be looking up to that. Is that what you really want as a role model?