Does your boyfriend know you're here?

[Bearsy]

My mate's brother is gay and he doesn't go to football. Not because of any chants he doesn't like or because he feels anyone would act in a homophobic way, it's cause he is into other things. It seems that most of his gay mates are into other things as well and none of them seem to be interested at all in football. In fact, I never see any of the guys in the waiting area of sexy summer Sundays in Ham kicking a ball around. I also use to work in Soho and go for drinks in the gay bars there. They never once showed a match at 'The Edge'. For some reason gay guys just don't seem to be interested in football. Are they footballaphobic? Maybe they should start wearing team tops on nights out to show their support. The only gay footballer to ever come out was an American where football is generally considered a bit of a gay sport. Gays seem to be into stuff other gays are into.

 

gays have always been put off watching football because of the monochrome laces.

[Patrick Bateman]

gays have always been put off watching football because of the monochrome laces.

 

Ah, but now we have multi-coloured laces, many straight players will pretend to be gay to get down with it.

[Toon Saint]

I think there is little doubt that this will be a watershed moment in the fight against the plague of homophobia in football. When the first gay premiership footballer holds his press conference for the world's media next year and they ask him what prompted his announcement he will answer 'the laces.'

 

You can trivialize it all you want and there might be some debate about whether it is the best approach. At least it has a decent visual appeal and communicates something more than your drivel. The next 'out' gay footballer might not necessarily remark on the laces, but it could be that because so many of his peers actually stood up for the cause by wearing them that encouraged him to openly discuss his sexuality.

 

Are you a gay Toon Saint?

 

Are you a straight Hypo? Ridiculous guilt-by-association logic that simmers under the surface of most of the posts on here.

 

Fair play, you are right, it is disingenuous for you or I to speak on their behalf. Put forward some accounts of people being put off going to football then?

 

Do your own research or just continue to live on in blinkered ignorance. I know gay fans who have been offended by homophobic chants at football matches, and also straight fans who have been offended by homophobic chants. Obviously this will differ from club to club and the nature of the chants will change depending on the fixture. It might not necessarily stop them going to football games but if it is enough to make them feel uncomfortable then something needs to be done about it. I'm not going to disclose their accounts to a stranger on the web, but what I will say is that there is a reason that Stonewall are pursuing this current laces campaign and why Kick It Out have an app for people to report homophobic abuse during football matches. These initiatives don't just appear from nowhere, they come from a groundswell of resistance against such abuse.

 

This was only a few weeks ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23962267

 

You made the problem. Its not the same thing

 

I invented homophobia in football? Next joke.

 

You're looking for problems where none exist.

 

This very thread proves my points a hundred times over. So many people claiming no problems exist and then queuing up to make snide remarks or outwardly homophobic comments. One poster even bringing genetic deficiencies into it - unbelievable thing to say. Obviously wasting my breath speaking to most of you lot as you can't see the wood for the trees. Cue another gay joke...

 

What colour laces do we wear for the pro-homophobe campaign.

 

A swastika would do. A man who revels in his own prejudice, how f^cking sad.

[Joensuu]

Any measure to reduce discrimination has to be a good thing. All football clubs should participate in any effort to reduce discrimination (unless they have very good reason not to do so).

 

The chants in question aren't funny or clever. All they achieve is highlighting our own ignorance. The chants aren't directly negative, they can normally be condensed into a rather simple message of 'you're gay'. The reason many find this funny or clever stems from their assumption that being gay is in some way a negative thing. Which, of course, it isn't. Basically, it's playground humour, highlight a reason why someone appears to be different from others and have a good laugh at their expense.

 

I personally don't find the chanting offensive, and I'm sure many gay people at St Mary's don't either, but I'm sure most find them cringeworthy at best. Homophobic chants are one step down from the most banal chants that some still resort to, the facepalmingly obvious (e.g West Ham fans singing 'Play Up Pompey', or us singing 'You can stick your f***ing bubbles up you a***'). I wonder how many times the respective fans will hear those sung at them this season - will the intended effect of trying to wind up the opponents ever actually be achieved by such base stupidity? Homophobic chants are worse again. IMO, they are little more than a public medium for declaring 'look at me, I'm stupid'. I offer anyone wishing to sing such cr*p my sympathy.

[Saint86]

1) It reinforces a culture where gay footballers are afraid to 'come out'

2) Just because the nature of the chant is generalised doesn't preclude people taking personal offence to it.

3) Hard to say what somebody else will find offensive when you haven't been in that minority position (i.e. black, disabled, gay)

4) When we have had so many government backed initiatives supporting the goal of kicking racism out of football, then I guess there are a fair number of people out there who are bothered about what is chanted at a football match. In my opinion, rightly so.

 

For example, the recent FA campaign against spurs fans to stop them racially abusing themselves by chanting "Yiddos"or "Yid Army" etc?

 

Please dude get a grip. I have been going to football matches for 20 years and I have never heard a homophobic chant, in fact I have never seen homophobia in any walk of life, be it at Uni, down a pub, with friends and certainly not at work.... you are making a massive issue out of very little, ****ing off a lot of people in the process, and essentially implying that people aren't capable of defending themselves...

 

People don't need to have their hand held to come out, and it is no societies place to tell someone that it is okay to come out... its a non issue, and the sooner people grasp that the sooner we can all move on with life...

 

I am far more concerned about the level and intensity of swearing that occurs at football grounds around children than I am over something that doesn't frigging happen.

[Sour Mash]

Do your own research or just continue to live on in blinkered ignorance. I know gay fans who have been offended by homophobic chants at football matches, and also straight fans who have been offended by homophobic chants. Obviously this will differ from club to club and the nature of the chants will change depending on the fixture. It might not necessarily stop them going to football games but if it is enough to make them feel uncomfortable then something needs to be done about it. I'm not going to disclose their accounts to a stranger on the web, but what I will say is that there is a reason that Stonewall are pursuing this current laces campaign and why Kick It Out have an app for people to report homophobic abuse during football matches. These initiatives don't just appear from nowhere, they come from a groundswell of resistance against such abuse.

But lots of things shouted at football probably make people feel uncomfortable, should we ban anyone shouting or singing anything that someone else might not like? You say this campaign is as a result of "resistnace against such abuse" - what abuse? Can you give examples?

[Pastor Patrón]

Toon Saint, you seem a little.......butthurt

[Toon Saint]

For example, the recent FA campaign against spurs fans to stop them racially abusing themselves by chanting "Yiddos"or "Yid Army" etc?

 

Please dude get a grip. I have been going to football matches for 20 years and I have never heard a homophobic chant, in fact I have never seen homophobia in any walk of life, be it at Uni, down a pub, with friends and certainly not at work.... you are making a massive issue out of very little, ****ing off a lot of people in the process, and essentially implying that people aren't capable of defending themselves...

 

People don't need to have their hand held to come out, and it is no societies place to tell someone that it is okay to come out... its a non issue, and the sooner people grasp that the sooner we can all move on with life...

 

I am far more concerned about the level and intensity of swearing that occurs at football grounds around children than I am over something that doesn't frigging happen.

 

The argument about the 'Yid army' chant is that a lot of Spurs fans, who aren't in fact Jewish, have reclaimed that word as a means to defend themselves from anti-semitic chanting. The debate there is whether those non-Jewish fans have the right to deploy a term that they have no actual affiliation with...but that is for another thread...

 

Why do some people think that because they have never encountered prejudice in life that it does not exist? That is an incredibly naive and insular worldview.

 

Naturally, people do not like being told that they have outdated or prejudiced views so it really doesn't surprise me if people get irked by it. Nor do I particularly care if I am ****ing them off for pointing that out to them. It's a thread designed for the topic of homophobia in football, would you prefer if it was just open to people spewing out gay jokes and pretending that the only problem is with Stonewall for daring to confront the issue?

 

Surely the whole laces movement is an act of gay people defending themselves, but in denying the very existence of a problem you remove or trivialize that potential. While I agree that it is not societies place to tell whether an individual it is ok to 'come out', and I dislike the power dimensions inherent to that process, a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level.

 

If you truly feel there is not a problem with homophobia in the game and feel that other football fans are as open-minded as you, wouldn't a more constructive and positive approach be: good initiative, hope to see lots of PL footballers wearing the laces, not a problem for me, couldn't care less about a footballers sexuality etc...

 

Instead this whole denial culture and moving the debate onto things such as swearing - which is about manners and personal conduct, not prejudice - seems just like an avoidance tactic to me.

Edited 17 September, 2013 by Toon Saint

[Pastor Patrón]

a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level.

 

So people getting turned on by kiddies is ok too then?

[JN9]

Surely the chanting 'Does Your Boyfriend Know You're Here?' chant is homophobic, even if only mildly... A player was being singled out because of his (presumed) homosexuality. This (to me anyway) is just as bad as people singling someone out because of their ethnic origin.

 

I saw the interview with the american lad who has come out and he clearly thought that it would affect his career (especially in this country) if he came out.

 

Some people seem to go along the lines that it doesn't matter if someone is gay, but equally they don't want to know about it? Why not?

 

Imagine feeling like you had to hide the fact that you had a girlfriend/wife. It can't be easy, and the past tells us that they are issues with homosexuals coming out and if this campaign makes them feel more comfortable living as everyone else does then I'm all for it.

 

Excuse me for my use of words, but the ignorance of some of the posts on here astound me.

[buctootim]

But lots of things shouted at football probably make people feel uncomfortable, should we ban anyone shouting or singing anything that someone else might not like? You say this campaign is as a result of "resistnace against such abuse" - what abuse? Can you give examples?

 

Exactly. Its the tribal confrontational nature which makes the atmosphere. Everything and anything gets picked on - fat, slow, ginger, female linos etc etc. If Toon Saint cant cope with football chants and songs he needs to give Rugby a wide berth too - 'Bestiality is best', 'Charlotte the Harlot lay dying', 'Eskimo Nell'.....

 

Most people dont want the world sanitised into boring sterility, homogenous, bland carp.

[Toon Saint]

So people getting turned on by kiddies is ok too then?

 

Are you comparing being gay to being a pederast? Don't talk sh1t all of your life.

[Pastor Patrón]

Are you comparing being gay to being a pederast? Don't talk sh1t all of your life.

 

So what I actually just quoted was in fact more total ******** being spouted by you, no?

[JN9]

The argument about the 'Yid army' chant is that a lot of Spurs fans, who aren't in fact Jewish, have reclaimed that word as a means to defend themselves from anti-semitic chanting. The debate there is whether those non-Jewish fans have the right to deploy a term that they have no actual affiliation with...but that is for another thread...

 

Why do some people think that because they have never encountered prejudice in life that it does not exist? That is an incredibly naive and insular worldview.

 

Naturally, people do not like being told that they have outdated or prejudiced views so it really doesn't surprise me if people get irked by it. Nor do I particularly care if I am ****ing them off for pointing that out to them. It's a thread designed for the topic of homophobia in football, would you prefer if it was just open to people spewing out gay jokes and pretending that the only problem is with Stonewall for daring to confront the issue?

 

Surely the whole laces movement is an act of gay people defending themselves, but in denying the very existence of a problem you remove or trivialize that potential. While I agree that it is not societies place to tell whether an individual it is ok to 'come out', and I dislike the power dimensions inherent to that process, a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level.

 

If you truly feel there is not a problem with homophobia in the game and feel that other football fans are as open-minded as you, wouldn't a more constructive and positive approach be: good initiative, hope to see lots of PL footballers wearing the laces, not a problem for me, couldn't care less about a footballers sexuality etc...

 

Instead this whole denial culture and moving the debate onto things such as swearing - which is about manners and personal conduct, not prejudice - seems just like an avoidance tactic to me.

 

Well said... You have basically echoed my views on the subject, sadly I'm not quite as well written as you are.

 

Best of luck though, I fear you're fighting a losing battle with most.

 

Pastor Patron for example...

[Toon Saint]

So what I actually just quoted was in fact more total ******** being spouted by you, no?

 

Why did you bring sexual attraction to kids into it as though that is legitmated through a discussion of homosexuality in football?

 

You are talking nonsense.

[Pastor Patrón]

Why did you bring sexual attraction to kids into it as though that is legitmated through a discussion of homosexuality in football?

 

You are talking nonsense.

 

Because you were saying a culture is oppressive for inhibiting someones sexuality, which as I've just pointed out is complete sh#te.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Some football chants are offensive. Telling West Ham fans to stick their bubbles up their arse wasn't very nice. Will we eventually have to just sing nice songs that won't offend anyone?

[buctootim]

Why did you bring sexual attraction to kids into it as though that is legitmated through a discussion of homosexuality in football?

 

 

Because you wrote this: "a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level".

 

Are you not predjudiced about paedophilia? In many societies it is culturally normal to marry immediately after puberty, around 11? surely you should be advocating for a change in view here too? Or is it only when your interests are 'threatened' you post? How do feel about men having sex in public toilets or public parks? Is it a good thing, despite kids being around and scared? Please tell us, which cultures are good and which are bad.

[Toon Saint]

Because you were saying a culture is oppressive for inhibiting someones sexuality, which as I've just pointed out is complete sh#te.

 

I said that a prejudiced society can inhibit people feeling comfortable with their sexuality, within the context of gay persons in football. You brought peadophilia into it as though that is on the same level, and the only thing you have proved is that you are a complete sh1te.

[Bearsy]

wait... is these rainbow laces for paedo's as well? I will not support rainbow laces if ur using them to lure kids.

[hypochondriac]

Because you wrote this: "a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level".

 

Are you not predjudiced about paedophilia? In many societies it is culturally normal to marry immediately after puberty, around 11? surely you should be advocating for a change in view here too? Or is it only when your interests are 'threatened' you post? How do feel about men having sex in public toilets or public parks? Is it a good thing, despite kids being around and scared? Please tell us, which cultures are good and which are bad.

 

I just laughed out loud at an image of two blokes going at it in the toilet whilst a little kid is hunched in the opposite cubicle crying.

[Tokyo-Saint]

That's right bear. You have your own system of approval already in place don't you. No point in muddying the water eh?

 

[buctootim]

I said that a prejudiced society can inhibit people feeling comfortable with their sexuality, within the context of gay persons in football. You brought peadophilia into it as though that is on the same level, and the only thing you have proved is that you are a complete sh1te.

 

So you think people are prejudiced when they are against things you like, but when they like things you don't they're disgusting perverts?

[Toon Saint]

Because you wrote this: "a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level".

 

Are you not predjudiced about paedophilia? In many societies it is culturally normal to marry immediately after puberty, around 11? surely you should be advocating for a change in view here too? Or is it only when your interests are 'threatened' you post? How do feel about men having sex in public toilets or public parks? Is it a good thing, despite kids being around and scared? Please tell us, which cultures are good and which are bad.

 

Reductio ad absurdum. Oh yes, the logical consequence of me suggesting we have a more accepting culture towards gay people in football is that I am demanding a child-sex free-for-all. FFS.

 

Sorry but do you even know what you are saying? You sound like you have had some traumatic events growing up around public lavs that you might want to share as well...

[buctootim]

Did actually happen to me a couple of times in Hove with young kids who needed to go to the toilet 'right now'. There were always saddos in the cubicles and hanging around outside. My son hated going in there, it scared him.

[buctootim]

Reductio ad absurdum. Oh yes, the logical consequence of me suggesting we have a more accepting culture towards gay people in football is that I am demanding a child-sex free-for-all. FFS.

 

9/10 for hyperbole but only 2/10 for comprehension. The point is all acceptance or rejection of different forms of sexuality is cultural. If you are going to lobby for one group to be in the accepted groovy gang, surely its rank hypocrisiy to not include the others - otherwise you applying a value judgement to the things you dont like - just like the football fans you want to demonise.

[Sour Mash]

The argument about the 'Yid army' chant is that a lot of Spurs fans, who aren't in fact Jewish, have reclaimed that word as a means to defend themselves from anti-semitic chanting. The debate there is whether those non-Jewish fans have the right to deploy a term that they have no actual affiliation with...but that is for another thread...

 

Why do some people think that because they have never encountered prejudice in life that it does not exist? That is an incredibly naive and insular worldview.

 

Naturally, people do not like being told that they have outdated or prejudiced views so it really doesn't surprise me if people get irked by it. Nor do I particularly care if I am ****ing them off for pointing that out to them. It's a thread designed for the topic of homophobia in football, would you prefer if it was just open to people spewing out gay jokes and pretending that the only problem is with Stonewall for daring to confront the issue?

 

Surely the whole laces movement is an act of gay people defending themselves, but in denying the very existence of a problem you remove or trivialize that potential. While I agree that it is not societies place to tell whether an individual it is ok to 'come out', and I dislike the power dimensions inherent to that process, a prejudiced culture does inhibit a person from feeling comfortable about their sexuality, even on a private level.

 

If you truly feel there is not a problem with homophobia in the game and feel that other football fans are as open-minded as you, wouldn't a more constructive and positive approach be: good initiative, hope to see lots of PL footballers wearing the laces, not a problem for me, couldn't care less about a footballers sexuality etc...

 

Instead this whole denial culture and moving the debate onto things such as swearing - which is about manners and personal conduct, not prejudice - seems just like an avoidance tactic to me.

No, it seems that you want the things that you find offensive banned, but aren't bothered about what other people find offensive - that's not a very open minded approach to the world.

[DuncanRG]

Let's look at this another way.

 

What are the negative consequences of an anti-homophobia initiative?

 

The underlying hostility in some of these posts suggests that people feel some threat to traditional power structures, where straight, white males are allowed to say more or less anything they like at the expense of 'abnormal' people. Our friend buctootim has conveniently listed some, including fat people and, paradoxically, women.

 

I wonder why you don't mention race. Is race different? Why can we take the **** out of someone for their gender or sexuality, but not their race? Approach this question logically and this is the point at which you understand what myself and others have been saying.

 

On the (absolutely absurd) comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia - objections to paedophilia are about consent. Children under 16 are not deemed mature enough to consent to sex and understand its implications. Sex without consent is rape. There is a moral gulf between adults who take advantage of the immaturity of children, and consenting adults in homosexual relationships.

Edited 17 September, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Toon Saint]

Did actually happen to me a couple of times in Hove with young kids who needed to go to the toilet 'right now'. There were always saddos in the cubicles and hanging around outside. My son hated going in there, it scared him.

 

You are bringing the debate onto sexual practise here, and it's not what I was discussing beforehand. Might not have been great for your kids but you get 'saddos' in all forms of life not just gay people. I've got no opinion on what consenting adults get up to in private or public, but to conflate being gay with non-consensual sex with kids is hysterical and extremely prejudiced in itself.

[Gemmel]

This very thread proves my points a hundred times over. So many people claiming no problems exist and then queuing up to make snide remarks or outwardly homophobic comments. One poster even bringing genetic deficiencies into it - unbelievable thing to say. Obviously wasting my breath speaking to most of you lot as you can't see the wood for the trees. Cue another gay joke....

 

And there you have it. Through your own blind narrow minded mind, in your quest for feigned outrage, you have completely / deliberately read something into my post that quite simply didn't exist. Which considering the debate, could be seen as rather ironic, given most of the posters are arguing against you that there is no problem, whilst you are on your little crusade assure us there is, you appear to have proven the point in case.

 

And just to humour you, I never mentioned "deficiencies" what I said was the genetic make up (Could equally have been genetic attributes - But you rushed in all offended). A simple google search validates the thought (Yeah the one that you said was completely wrong and not worthy of any consideration) that there are genetic differences in the make up of straight / gay men and women. The example already cited on here is black swimmers. We all know what great sports achievements black people have made and will continue to do so, but something in the genetics doesn't lend itself very well to Olympic swimming. It is also unlikely that Peter Crouch will Spawn a national hunt winning jockey. Given the apparent disproportionate % of straight footballers/ sports people in general, when compared to the gay / straight splits reported in the general public, it would be foolish not to consider that genetics may play some part and these very same genetics, may well be considered positive or attributes......But hey ho, make some more stuff up and get hot under the collar about it.

 

You have done yourself no favours. Feel free to apologise for making false accusations.

[Bearsy]

What are the negative consequences of an anti-homophobia initiative?

 

i feel like cos I'm a football fan they're accusing me of being a horrible nazi gay-basher or something.

[buctootim]

Let's look at this another way.

 

What are the negative consequences of an anti-homophobia initiative?

 

The underlying hostility in some of these posts suggests that people feel some threat to traditional power structures, where straight, white males are allowed to say more or less anything they like at the expense of 'abnormal' people. Our friend buctootim has conveniently listed some, including fat people and, paradoxically, women.

 

I wonder why you don't mention race. Is race different? Why can we take the **** out of someone for their gender or sexuality, but not their race? Approach this question logically and this is the point at which you understand what myself and others have been saying.

 

On the (absolutely absurd) comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia - objections to paedophilia are about consent. Children under 16 are not deemed mature enough to consent to sex and understand its implications. Sex without consent is rape. There is a moral gulf between adults who take advantage of the immaturity of children, and consenting adults in homosexual relationships.

 

The whole of football is a paradox. Fat slobs chant 'who ate all the pies? ' at some highly honed athlete who may have a couple of pounds on him, women yell ' get up you big girl' at players after a tackle. Catholic friends of mine happily yell 'burn the Pope' at the Lewes bonfire celebrations which would have a totally different meaning in Belfast and they would never do. Values and norms change over time. Trying to force the pace of change just breeds resentment and obstinacy.

 

 

My point about paedophilia is not to associate gay men with it, rather to point out the inconsistentcy of campaigning for acceptance of one practice, but condemning another which is culturally accepted elswhere. Perhaps paedophilia is too emotive to discuss properly. Why not campaign for auto-erotic asphyxiation to be accepted by football crowds? (with or without orange).

Edited 17 September, 2013 by buctootim

[lordswoodsaints]

I think this is another case of trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Homophobia,racism,sexism,laughing at people who are different all exist in society in general and football is no different but it is not practiced by the majority,the majority of the population are tolerant.

[DuncanRG]

The whole of football is a paradox. Fat slobs chant 'who ate all the pies? ' at some highly honed athlete who may have a couple of pounds on him, 'women yell ' get up you big girl' at players after a tackle. Catholic friends of mine happily yell 'burn the Pope' at the Lewes bonfire celebrations which would have a totally different meaning in Belfast and they would never do. Values and norms change over time. Trying to force the pace of change just breeds resentment and obstinacy.

 

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it?

 

There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any time of change, but things got done and the US became a better place.

 

I think this is another case of trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Homophobia,racism,sexism,laughing at people who are different all exist in society in general and football is no different but it is not practiced by the majority,the majority of the population are tolerant.

 

I agree to an extent - it seems to me that this campaign is trying to unite the tolerant majority, because we tend to keep quiet about these sorts of things. That can serve as a kind of tacit consent to the prejudice of the minority.

Edited 17 September, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Tokyo-Saint]

Soon we won't be able to sing "get yer tits out for the lads" this is my favourite song as it is so full of optimism.

[Toon Saint]

And there you have it. Through your own blind narrow minded mind, in your quest for feigned outrage, you have completely / deliberately read something into my post that quite simply didn't exist. Which considering the debate, could be seen as rather ironic, given most of the posters are arguing against you that there is no problem, whilst you are on your little crusade assure us there is, you appear to have proven the point in case.

 

And just to humour you, I never mentioned "deficiencies" what I said was the genetic make up (Could equally have been genetic attributes - But you rushed in all offended). A simple google search validates the thought (Yeah the one that you said was completely wrong and not worthy of any consideration) that there are genetic differences in the make up of straight / gay men and women. The example already cited on here is black swimmers. We all know what great sports achievements black people have made and will continue to do so, but something in the genetics doesn't lend itself very well to Olympic swimming. It is also unlikely that Peter Crouch will Spawn a national hunt winning jockey. Given the apparent disproportionate % of straight footballers/ sports people in general, when compared to the gay / straight splits reported in the general public, it would be foolish not to consider that genetics may play some part and these very same genetics, may well be considered positive or attributes......But hey ho, make some more stuff up and get hot under the collar about it.

 

You have done yourself no favours. Feel free to apologise for making false accusations.

 

My 'blind narrow minded mind'? I found your premise that homosexual men do not possess the adequate genetic make up to become professional sportsmen or footballers completely objectionable. Anton Hysen, son of former Liverpool player Glenn Hysen, is gay and plays professional football in Sweden. How does your theory follow there?

 

I'd suggest that gay men have been socialised into pursuing other interests and hobbies because they feel excluded from competitive sport environments, a culture reinforced by a lot of the prejudice evidenced on this thread.

 

Surely you indicate some sort of genetic deficiency as in effect you are suggesting that gay persons do not possess the genetic fabric, whether physically or mentally, to become eminent in sporting fields?

 

As I said before, mixing eugenicist theories with sexual politics has some pretty terrible historical precedents, especially when couched in the language of scientific neutrality and impartiality that you so carefully replicate. I'd suggest you read up on them before accusing me of having a 'narrow-minded mind'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it?

 

There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any times of change, but things got done and the US became a better place.

 

Yes, I really think it would have. I also believe that it would disappear more quickly if the question of race or skin colour were allowed to die a natural death. Every time that it's pointed out that somebody is a different colour, or the first black person to do this, that or the other the differences between us are being emphasised. I have heard interviews on BBC Radio 4 where the subject's skin colour has been mentioned and discussed when the listener would otherwise have been totally unaware. Every time that we are asked to complete a form stating our ethnic origin we are perpetuating the divisions that used to exist in our society. I hope that I live long enough to see the day when somebody's skin colour, or ethnic origin or private sexual life is no more important than the colour of their hair or the colour of their eyes. For that reason I am against wearing rainbow shoelaces or any other public display which will only serve to prolong prejudices, perceived or otherwise.

[Sour Mash]

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it?

 

There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any time of change, but things got done and the US became a better place.

 

 

 

I agree to an extent - it seems to me that this campaign is trying to unite the tolerant majority, because we tend to keep quiet about these sorts of things. That can serve as a kind of tacit consent to the prejudice of the minority.

You don't seem to be in a majority on this thread.

[buctootim]

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it?

 

There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any time of change, but things got done and the US became a better place.

 

Has racism in football declined any quicker or slower than in the general population? Have the various initiatives made any difference or have they just taken place at a time when things were improving anyway? The success of the civil rights movement was a product of changed attitudes, not a cause of it. Its achievements were to force a retrograde minority to give equal legal rights to all - not to change their minds.

[DuncanRG]

Yes, I really think it would have. I also believe that it would disappear more quickly if the question of race or skin colour were allowed to die a natural death. Every time that it's pointed out that somebody is a different colour, or the first black person to do this, that or the other the differences between us are being emphasised. I have heard interviews on BBC Radio 4 where the subject's skin colour has been mentioned and discussed when the listener would otherwise have been totally unaware. Every time that we are asked to complete a form stating our ethnic origin we are perpetuating the divisions that used to exist in our society. I hope that I live long enough to see the day when somebody's skin colour, or ethnic origin or private sexual life is no more important than the colour of their hair or the colour of their eyes. For that reason I am against wearing rainbow shoelaces or any other public display which will only serve to prolong prejudices, perceived or otherwise.

 

How many social injustices were solved through silence?

 

My point about paedophilia is not to associate gay men with it, rather to point out the inconsistentcy of campaigning for acceptance of one practice, but condemning another which is culturally accepted elswhere. Perhaps paedophilia is too emotive to discuss properly. Why not campaign for auto-erotic asphyxiation to be accepted by football crowds? (with or without orange).

 

Here's one key difference with paedophilia and the key reason for its rejection: the lack of consent. Paedophilia is rape.

 

You don't seem to be in a majority on this thread.

 

Sadly not. So do you believe the majority of the population are tolerant?

 

Has racism in football declined any quicker or slower than in the general population? Have the various initiatives made any difference or have they just taken place at a time when things were improving anyway? The success of the civil rights movement was a product of changed attitudes, not a cause of it. Its achievements were to force a retrograde minority to give equal legal rights to all - not to change their minds.

 

Powerful people - white people - had to change their minds to grant equal rights to all. You say it was a product of changed attitudes; the civil rights movement was led by black people. At what point did black people enjoy being treated as second class citizens and when did their attitudes change? The only thing that changed was their belief that they could do something about it, galvanized by Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, John Lewis etc.

Edited 17 September, 2013 by DuncanRG

[buctootim]

Here's one key difference with paedophilia and the key reason for its rejection: the lack of consent. Paedophilia is rape.

 

In Western European culture yes. In other cultures its marrying young. Are you picking and choosing which cultures and values are right? Once you get that subjective how do you know that the supposed homophobic majority arent right?

[hypochondriac]

Let's look at this another way.

 

What are the negative consequences of an anti-homophobia initiative?

 

The underlying hostility in some of these posts suggests that people feel some threat to traditional power structures, where straight, white males are allowed to say more or less anything they like at the expense of 'abnormal' people. Our friend buctootim has conveniently listed some, including fat people and, paradoxically, women.

 

I wonder why you don't mention race. Is race different? Why can we take the **** out of someone for their gender or sexuality, but not their race? Approach this question logically and this is the point at which you understand what myself and others have been saying.

 

On the (absolutely absurd) comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia - objections to paedophilia are about consent. Children under 16 are not deemed mature enough to consent to sex and understand its implications. Sex without consent is rape. There is a moral gulf between adults who take advantage of the immaturity of children, and consenting adults in homosexual relationships.

 

The downside is that it is an utter waste of time and money, promotes the idea that doing something, even something ridiculous and pointless is better than doing nothing to combat a problem that many people believe doesn't exist and perpetuates the stereotype that football fans are homophobic, racist anti-semites.

[DuncanRG]

In Western European culture yes. In other cultures its marrying young. Are you picking and choosing which cultures and values are right? Once you get that subjective how do you know that the supposed homophobic majority arent right?

 

I'm choosing my own personal values, as everybody does. There is no objectivity in such matters, only the united force of consensus. I'm throwing my two cents in according to my conscience.

 

The downside is that it is an utter waste of time and money, promotes the idea that doing something, even something ridiculous and pointless is better than doing nothing to combat a problem that many people believe doesn't exist and perpetuates the stereotype that football fans are homophobic, racist anti-semites.

 

It's not your money or time if you don't want to support it.

It promotes the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing when a problem is perceived to exist. You can't disagree with that, only the existence of the problem which we've talked about already.

As I've said, the campaign looks to prove that football fans are not homophobic and would happily accept gay footballers coming out. That's kind of the idea. It's football against homophobia, not anti-homophobia against football.

Edited 17 September, 2013 by DuncanRG

[Bucks Saint]

Yes, I really think it would have. I also believe that it would disappear more quickly if the question of race or skin colour were allowed to die a natural death. Every time that it's pointed out that somebody is a different colour, or the first black person to do this, that or the other the differences between us are being emphasised. I have heard interviews on BBC Radio 4 where the subject's skin colour has been mentioned and discussed when the listener would otherwise have been totally unaware. Every time that we are asked to complete a form stating our ethnic origin we are perpetuating the divisions that used to exist in our society. I hope that I live long enough to see the day when somebody's skin colour, or ethnic origin or private sexual life is no more important than the colour of their hair or the colour of their eyes. For that reason I am against wearing rainbow shoelaces or any other public display which will only serve to prolong prejudices, perceived or otherwise.

 

This 100%.

[buctootim]

Powerful people - white people - had to change their minds to grant equal rights to all. You say it was a product of changed attitudes; the civil rights movement was led by black people. At what point did black people enjoy being treated as second class citizens and when did their attitudes change? The only thing that changed was their belief that they could do something about it, galvanized by Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, John Lewis etc.

 

The Civil rights movement had been around in different forms for at least 250 years before achieving success. The change in prevailing culture meant that society had changed enough by the 1950s /1960s for it to win through. It was a consequence, not primarily a cause.

[DuncanRG]

The Civil rights movement had been around in different forms for at least 250 years before achieving success. The change in prevailing culture meant that society had changed enough by the 1950s /1960s for it to win through. It was a consequence, not primarily a cause.

 

Was that gradual change not led of pushed along by people? What natural force is changing these things?

[hypochondriac]

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it?

 

There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any time of change, but things got done and the US became a better place.

 

When players are pelted with butt plugs and told to get out of a club for being gay, then you can compare it to racism in football. As yet, no one has actually come out so we can only speculate on the reaction of supporters and clubs. My suspicion is that there would be a very small number of chants at first from a tiny minority and then they would cease.

[buctootim]

I'm choosing my own personal values, as everybody does. There is no objectivity in such matters, only the united force of consensus.

 

We have agreement

[hypochondriac]

I'm choosing my own personal values, as everybody does. There is no objectivity in such matters, only the united force of consensus. I'm throwing my two cents in according to my conscience.

 

 

 

It's not your money or time if you don't want to support it.

It promotes the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing when a problem is perceived to exist. You can't disagree with that, only the existence of the problem which we've talked about already.

As I've said, the campaign looks to prove that football fans are not homophobic and would happily accept gay footballers coming out. That's kind of the idea. It's football against homophobia, not anti-homophobia against football.

 

The implication is that those who do not support this campaign are against gays. Quite a few have suggested this on this very thread.

[Toon Saint]

The implication is that those who do not support this campaign are against gays. Quite a few have suggested this on this very thread.

 

No, your own prejudiced comments have confirmed that.