Thought Police Strike Again...
pessimistic By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo
A Brazilian judge faces legal action for homophobia after giving a judgment in which he said football was a masculine sport, not a homosexual one.
The judge is reported to have said no-one who had watched the golden era of Pele and others in the 1970s could ever consider having a homosexual idol.
His comments emerged in a case brought by Brazilian footballer Richarlyson.
Richarlyson, who plays for Sao Paulo, was named on national TV as a gay player by the manager of another team.
The suggestion that a leading Brazilian footballer was gay had already been the subject of considerable public speculation.
Richarlyson started legal proceedings against the manager, claiming that the public outing on television had damaged his image.
Controversial
In reaching a decision to effectively set the case aside, Judge Manoel Maximiniano Junqueira Filho said football was a virile masculine sport and not a homosexual one.
If you were a homosexual, it would be better to admit it or to conceal it completely, the judge was reported as saying.
However, if that was the case, it would be better to abandon the playing field, he added.
The judge said those who remembered the World Cup of 1970 and saw golden players such as Pele and Tostao would never consider a homosexual idol.
It was not shown to be reasonable to accept homosexuality in Brazilian football because this would damage the equilibrium and uniformity of thinking of the team.
A complaint is to be lodged about the judge's comments, which seem likely to become more controversial than the original legal action and his decision to shelve the case is also the subject of an appeal.----------------------------------------------------------------
It is so lovely to know that we now have thought police patrolling the world... people can't say what they really think or feel anymore.
Let's look at this... the judge is labeled as a homophobe by the writers of this report. But do they really know if he has homophobia? I mean... those with claustrophobia cannot even FUNCTION when in small spaces. Arachnophobia cases render a person helpless when confronted with a spider. So one who is homophobic could not even FUNCTION or live around a gay person, he'd be physically and psychologically unable to do so! Do we know this the case? No... I doubt it is. Once again people who dislike homosexuality are given a bad rep by the liberal media and their pro-gay bias.
Thought police suck. Next thing we know it'll be illegal to preach homosexuality is a SIN from the pulpits in America...
 | Currently listening : Truth Soul Rock & Roll By Elms Release date: 22 October, 2002 |
What are you talking about? Just because someone has claustrophobia it doesn't mean that they cannot function in a small room they may just get anxious or shakey not stop functioning. The same applies to homophobia, if you didn't know a phobia is an irrational fear of something that has varied consequences for the person. It doesn't mean they can't function around whatever they have a phobia of. There are different strenghs of phobias. If you thought differently you are a fool.
ReplyDeleteno... my point is the majority of gay and gay sympathizers label anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle of sin a homophobe, as if it is a greater sin to no approve of or be okay with homosexuality. There may be dif strengths of homophobia, however each individual who has a phobia has an immense fear... I am not afraid of gays, but I definitely disagree with their choice to live in sin.
ReplyDeleteHomophobia, as a label, by and large, is a way for the gay community to spread hate in regards to people who recognize homosexuality as the sin it really is.
Oh I understand in your head you had a totally different point to what you wrote, I see. You really should address that it would save being challenged on things then having to type out what you actually meant. My advice, make your point in the main article and make it better than you have been doing.
ReplyDeleteFurther to the above: Most definitions that I have seen of Homophobia usually involve the words "discrimintation against", "aversion to" or "contempt of". It is widely accepted that you and your fellow homophobes do not have to be scared of homosexuals as iscrimination is part of the definition of a homophobe.
ReplyDelete*discrimination.
ReplyDeletelook "friend". I am not a homophobe. I am not scared of homosexuals any more than I am scared of lying or adultery. all are sin. you and your liberal possy may try to change definitions to make those who defend truth to seem like the enemy. however I put forth that YOU are the enemy. If you stand against the truth of the Word, you are an enemy of truth.
ReplyDeletemy point? homosexuality is sin. and the liberals of our country want to pass laws that violate my free speech of labeling sinful action of what it is-- sin!
Well our "liberal posse" did not change the definition, the writers of the dictionary did after the word's meaning was set by society. So society, not the "liberal posse" or the gay community, has decided you are homphobic. Like I said you do not have to be scared of homosexuals to be a homophobe, by definition you are a homophobe. Here is the first definition I got from Google "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.". You cannot deny your contempt for them, yes you base this upon the bible but contempt is still contempt.
ReplyDeleteYou do know that the article is from Brazil right?
Well the majority of your original post was based upon your opinion of the use of the word homophobia so it is quite clear that you did not make your point well. In fact your little rant about the use of the word homophobia is nonsense as I have shown.
I may well be the enemy of your "truth" but you are an enemy of my truth, of Muslim "truth", of Hindu "truth" so it isn't really fair to throw around the label of "enemy" really is it? No. So don't as it acheives nothing.
As an aside I think that it is the responsibility of the state to care for its people and as there is no sound basis for your POV I believe the state would have every right to defend homosexuals and stop your homophobic preaching. Like I said that is an aside.
Maybe if you seem that way to so many people it is because that is what you are. Although you failed to properly respond to my post I still felt like replying not sure why to be honest.
ReplyDeleteWell if you fit the definition of a homophobe that is what you are, you discriminate against gay people you say they shouldn't be allowed to marry and you refer to them using a very offensive term I am sure you do a lot more besides this. How can you be so blind to think you are behaving decently?
I think it is great how you refer to it as hate on the part of the gay community, it just shows you supreme ignorance and your inability to look at something from someone else's perspective. Any 'hate' that the gay community shows towards you homophobes is a direct response to the hate that you show them. Hate breeds hate anybody knows that. Although I think you would agree that random straight people are rarely (never) beaten to death by a group of homosexuals for the sole reason that they are straight wouldn't you? No it never happens.
The truth is preople with your unshaking but very misguided faith is a rising issue in the world, however with time people like you will again begin to diminish and that thought comforts me.
If you wish to understand more I suggest you read some literature from the "enemy". As a great man once said "Know thy enemy". Obviously I suggest The God Delusion by Dawkins and also Breaking the Spell by Daniel C Dennett. Good luck in life and good luck in becoming the next Ted Haggard or whoever your preaching idols may be. Goodbye