Marc Guehi

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Action should be taken if you’re not allowed to write messages on your kit. 

[80]

4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Action should be taken if you’re not allowed to write messages on your kit. 

From what someone was posting earlier, the little smarty pants appears to have found a loophole as the armband isn't part of the kit

 

They'd probably go for a catch all disrepute charge, if they want to.

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by 80

[St. Maximin]

24 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

 

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.

 

Would be an objection for lack of foundation and speculation in court like. If we're doing the whole public trial thing. 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Kid Icarus

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The whole ‘sin not sinner’ argument stretches logic to the limit like. How can you really value someone equally if you think something they do naturally and as a key part of their being is fundamentally wrong? 

[St. Maximin]

9 minutes ago, J7 said:

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.

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.

[OverThere]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

The whole ‘sin not sinner’ argument stretches logic to the limit like. How can you really value someone equally if you think something they do naturally and as a key part of their being is fundamentally wrong? 

Interesting they (Christian football players and Christians in general) don't campaign against greed, which is also a sin mentioned in the bible all over the place, whilst the football players especially are picking up 100+ grand a week.

[St. Maximin]

14 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

 

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?

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.

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by St. Maximin

[KingArthur]

5 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

 

But isn't a hypocritic to threat gay people well, with love and kindness, while at the same time thinking what they represent and what they are is sinful and wrong? 

If they think all people are sinners but at the same time think "because these people are gay, they are sinners and they need to pray for salvation to go to heaven", it really is not right. Everyone is a sinner, but if the problem is being gay, then that "traditional view" has no place in this century. 

Making a problem of someone's sexuality should not be a thing in a modern society.

[St. Maximin]

1 minute ago, KingArthur said:

But isn't a hypocritic to threat gay people well, with love and kindness, while at the same time thinking what they represent and what they are is sinful and wrong? 

If they think all people are sinners but at the same time think "because these people are gay, they are sinners and they need to pray for salvation to go to heaven", it really is not right. Everyone is a sinner, but if the problem is being gay, then that "traditional view" has no place in this century. 

Making a problem of someone's sexuality should not be a thing in a modern society.

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.

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

So you think it's a coincidence he's written this on the rainbow armband and not on one of the other 30+ times he'll wear it this season?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

I wouldn’t describe people being gay as something they do mind, it’s something they are. 
 

Unless we’re saying it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t do anything sexual, which is patently just as bad a conclusion. 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[St. Maximin]

21 minutes ago, Nobody said:

So you think it's a coincidence he's written this on the rainbow armband and not on one of the other 30+ times he'll wear it this season?

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. 

[St. Maximin]

18 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I wouldn’t describe people being gay as something they do mind, it’s something they are. 
 

Unless we’re saying it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t do anything sexual, which is patently just as bad a conclusion. 

 

 

 

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.

[St. Maximin]

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.

[wormy]

15 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

 

Who could ever have foreseen constantly playing devil's advocate would prompt people to respond in disagreement? It's an absolute mystery. 

[St. Maximin]

1 minute ago, wormy said:

 

Who could ever have foreseen constantly playing devil's advocate would prompt people to respond in disagreement? It's an absolute mystery. 

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 

[DiddyLevine]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

No one expects the Guehi Inquisition 

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

But why write on this particular armband something about some religion that at best has a let's say patchy history with homosexuality? It's pretty obvious what he means by it, if he just wanted to express his love for Jesus he could have done that in a million other ways that wouldn't have downplayed the rainbow armband.

[St. Maximin]

12 minutes ago, Nobody said:

But why write on this particular armband something about some religion that at best has a let's say patchy history with homosexuality? It's pretty obvious what he means by it, if he just wanted to express his love for Jesus he could have done that in a million other ways that wouldn't have downplayed the rainbow armband.

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. 

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by St. Maximin

[Dr Jinx]

I really didn't think the topic of sexual preference would still be a thing in this day and age

6 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

But it's literally the one weekend where football bothers to show that gay people are accepted in football and he ruins it by writing "I love Jesus" across the armband that is supporting the cause.

 

What's anyone supposed to take from that other than he disagrees with the sentiment?

 

Do you think gay people should be included in sport? What are your feelings on the pride flag?

[Nobody]

4 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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. 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but it's very fanciful to not think that the reason he's written what he has on this particular armband has anything else to do other than a conflict of interest between the rainbow laces and his religion.

[St. Maximin]

5 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

I really didn't think the topic of sexual preference would still be a thing in this day and age

 

But it's literally the one weekend where football bothers to show that gay people are accepted in football and he ruins it by writing "I love Jesus" across the armband that is supporting the cause.

 

What's anyone supposed to take from that other than he disagrees with the sentiment?

 

Do you think gay people should be included in sport? What are your feelings on the pride flag?

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.

[St. Maximin]

15 minutes ago, Nobody said:

I'm sorry, but it's very fanciful to not think that the reason he's written what he has on this particular armband has anything else to do other than a conflict of interest between the rainbow laces and his religion.

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.

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by St. Maximin

[Nobody]

6 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

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.

 

 

 

 

But you can't say "we don't know why he's done it" then, because we do know why he's done it. He's done it because he feels his religion, who is against homosexuality, is more important than the rainbow cause and he felt that the world needs to know that as well.