By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Wow, this thread has moved into new territory and has been frankly pretty educational.
But to me the key points were (and excuse me for para-phrasing) ..
Antti's point about context. An ordinary older man may use language and even have views that offend today. But someone who leads a major organisation, particularly one as big and diverse as football, has a duty to be educated and inclusive in their actions and words. Failure to do so makes them unfit for office.
Bazza's comment that if we can make people happy for very little effort or downside then we should just do it.
It seems to me that if we follow these two principles we won't go far wrong.
Agree wholeheartedly, and add in Nix: "it's not really a big deal to not offend people, and doesn't take much effort"
0
Greg Clarke gone on 11:27 - Nov 12 with 1347 views
????????????????????????????????????????? What are you going on about ? I'd been reading the posts on 'lifestyle choice' and having watched 2TB's Monty Python post which made me lol, I thought of this video which I thought could explain the 'not being a lifestyle choice' way better than I could. Not sure why I should justify myself but will.
I have quite a few gay friends from clubbing and my cousin is and if you knew his Dad being gay would probably be his last lifestyle choice Ha Ha. So I would say that calling someone being gay a lifestyle choice is probably quite insulting for the reasons already listed. However, I found what DannyBlue wrote really interesting and even though I don't necessarily agree with him l liked the fact that he wasn't writing it from an entrenched position of prejudice (but snidely trying to hide it) but quite the opposite. Who knows he could be partially right I don't know enough to judge. But back to the video I remember seeing that when it came out and remember it being quite powerful when I doubt I had any real opinion on gay people so as I said I'm sure it highlights the lifestyle choice thing better than anything I coulkd say...and quicker lol
On the coloured thing, I think it depends on context. When used to an individual or about them usually these days I'd expect it's just another microaggression to make others feel lesser and make the person making the comment feel superior but then again what do I know. However I really don't think in the context of how Greg Clarke said it that he meant it like that in any way whatsever. If he'd only said that it would have been totally out of order if he'd lost his job or had to resign. Surely someone could just tell him to say players of colour or Black palyers in the future and that should be it.
If he'd only said a couple of the things he had or even said some of them in a slightly different way I think it would have been extremely harsh for him to resign or be sacked. But he didn't just say a couple of things so perhaps the overall jist of what he said show his true character. WTF do I know I don't know the geezer. I would expect his employers would probably know better than us what he's like and would know the point at which they would back him and the point when they would not.
0
Greg Clarke gone on 17:59 - Nov 12 with 1210 views
You make some interesting points. But even within the preferences that you list within heterosexuality, they are all subcategories, not moving between categories. And even then, a lot of people don't move between them. For instance, I could never find someone 20-30 years older than me remotely attractive. That's not a choice. It may have its roots in socialisation, psychology or biology but it isn't agency in the sense that I couldn't persuade myself to feel differently. And yet some people do and consistently do over time find older people irresistible. If I were told that it was shameful to only be attractive to similar aged people. If I couldn't have a family. If I wasn't allowed to adopt. If in some countries I would be criminalised, I'm not sure I could still change my orientation.
I agree it's probably a spectrum. And some people are bisexual, like one of your gay friends but may have a preference, one might be fully bisexual like another of your friends, and the other might be wholly homosexual. Personally I wouldn't want to make it more difficult for them by saying it's a choice, like preferring peas to cabbage. Or ask them to justify why they choose to have their particular preferences, any more than I would want to justify mine. But thanks for engaging.
I don't know if anyone's still interested in this discussion but a new article popped up that contributes to it. It you don't want to read it all, basically it says there were political reasons to say there was a 'gay gene', that were effective in helping bring through some of the equal rights we now enjoy. However a genetic study of almost 500k people suggest the genetic contribution to same-sex behaviour is "at most 8-25%". "Ergo, the findings provided essentially no predictive power to genetically assess any one individual’s orientation. While some scant biological element might be at play, what this deep dive into the human genome ironically revealed is that social and cultural factors likely play the greatest role in shaping human sexuality." Later..."So, while the [study] keeps the ‘born this way’ idea alive ... it also reflects a reality in which equal rights advocates no longer fear that the loss of a strict ‘by nature’ narrative would be an existential one".
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
