"A Good Cause Ruined"

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Sometimes things are best kept secretive though for the sanity of others?

I have now read this statement ten times, and it still doesn't make the slightest sense.
Are you suggesting that a gay player coming out would lead to an outbreak of mental illness in others?
Or that gay players should stay in the closet in case they come out and go mad as a result?
It is an excellent blog, and just a shame that the outrageous demands of the gay community for equality and acceptance are a step too far for some.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think most of the people disagreeing are suggesting that the gay community aren't just looking for equality and acceptance, they're looking for everyone to stand up and make a point of acknowledging that they're equal and accepted.

A gay footballer would get abuse from the opposition fans because it's unusual, in the sense that most footballers aren't gay, not because they don't believe they should be allowed to be gay. If, for example, 20% of footballers were gay and all came out at once, there'd be a few chants in the first couple of weeks but that'd be it because it wouldn't be as unusual any more.

But heterosexual players don't face vile chants every week.
Brighton fans get that too, and most of them are straight.
That isn't really equality and acceptance, is it?
Imagine if folk did the same for black players.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racism, homophobia, sectarianism or whatever, and should not be tolerated.
Except for rags of course, who should be persecuted at every opportunity.
Even gay rags, although it should be made clear that it is the rag element that is being persecuted, rather than the gay one.

 

[kenzie115]

I have now read this statement ten times, and it still doesn't make the slightest sense.
Are you suggesting that a gay player coming out would lead to an outbreak of mental illness in others?
Or that gay players should stay in the closet in case they come out and go mad as a result?
It is an excellent blog, and just a shame that the outrageous demands of the gay community for equality and acceptance are a step too far for some.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think most of the people disagreeing are suggesting that the gay community aren't just looking for equality and acceptance, they're looking for everyone to stand up and make a point of acknowledging that they're equal and accepted.

A gay footballer would get abuse from the opposition fans because it's unusual, in the sense that most footballers aren't gay, not because they don't believe they should be allowed to be gay. If, for example, 20% of footballers were gay and all came out at once, there'd be a few chants in the first couple of weeks but that'd be it because it wouldn't be as unusual any more.

But heterosexual players don't face vile chants every week.
Brighton fans get that too, and most of them are straight.
That isn't really equality and acceptance, is it?
Imagine if folk did the same for black players.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racism, homophobia, sectarianism or whatever, and should not be tolerated.
Except for rags of course, who should be persecuted at every opportunity.
Even gay rags, although it should be made clear that it is the rag element that is being persecuted, rather than the gay one.

Heterosexual players don't face chants about being straight because it's the norm, and football chants directed at players come out of someone being different.

Football fans abuse opposition players for pretty much everything they can think of. Racism is excluded because of its history but there's not the same history of prejudice regarding sexuality, homosexuals were never enslaved by heterosexuals.

To me, singing 'you fat bastard' to Rooney for example would be no different to singing 'you queer bastard' to Chris Smalling if he was to come out. I have no problem in everyday life with people being fat just as I have no problem with people choosing to be gay. At the same time, I'm not going to stand up and make sure everyone knows I've got no problem with fat people because it shouldn't be necessary.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think most of the people disagreeing are suggesting that the gay community aren't just looking for equality and acceptance, they're looking for everyone to stand up and make a point of acknowledging that they're equal and accepted.

A gay footballer would get abuse from the opposition fans because it's unusual, in the sense that most footballers aren't gay, not because they don't believe they should be allowed to be gay. If, for example, 20% of footballers were gay and all came out at once, there'd be a few chants in the first couple of weeks but that'd be it because it wouldn't be as unusual any more.

But heterosexual players don't face vile chants every week.
Brighton fans get that too, and most of them are straight.
That isn't really equality and acceptance, is it?
Imagine if folk did the same for black players.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racism, homophobia, sectarianism or whatever, and should not be tolerated.
Except for rags of course, who should be persecuted at every opportunity.
Even gay rags, although it should be made clear that it is the rag element that is being persecuted, rather than the gay one.

homosexuals were never enslaved by heterosexuals.

Nope - they were put in concentration camps instead.
Sorry, but that 'if your people were never slaves then they are fair game for persecution' argument just doesn't hold up, because by implying that then you are legitimising any discrimination that doesn't involve slavery.
What about the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing, or the crusades?
There was no slavery involved, so are they fair game?
I take you point about players getting stick for being fat, but to get stick for sexual orientation is just wrong.
Fat bastards can diet - gay folk can't become straight through weight watchers.
Oh, and I don't think folk 'choose' to be gay either, any more than you can 'choose' to be black.

 

[kenzie115]

But heterosexual players don't face vile chants every week.
Brighton fans get that too, and most of them are straight.
That isn't really equality and acceptance, is it?
Imagine if folk did the same for black players.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racism, homophobia, sectarianism or whatever, and should not be tolerated.
Except for rags of course, who should be persecuted at every opportunity.
Even gay rags, although it should be made clear that it is the rag element that is being persecuted, rather than the gay one.

homosexuals were never enslaved by heterosexuals.

Nope - they were put in concentration camps instead.
Sorry, but that 'if your people were never slaves then they are fair game for persecution' argument just doesn't hold up, because by implying that then you are legitimising any discrimination that doesn't involve slavery.
What about the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing, or the crusades?
There was no slavery involved, so are they fair game?
I take you point about players getting stick for being fat, but to get stick for sexual orientation is just wrong.
Fat bastards can diet - gay folk can't become straight through weight watchers.
Oh, and I don't think folk 'choose' to be gay either, any more than you can 'choose' to be black.

Slavery was just an example, although I think you know that.

The choice element is something I hadn't considered. What about something like baldness then? People don't choose to go bald but it could still be targetted by football fans.

 

[taconinja]

homosexuals were never enslaved by heterosexuals.

Nope - they were put in concentration camps instead.
Sorry, but that 'if your people were never slaves then they are fair game for persecution' argument just doesn't hold up, because by implying that then you are legitimising any discrimination that doesn't involve slavery.
What about the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing, or the crusades?
There was no slavery involved, so are they fair game?
I take you point about players getting stick for being fat, but to get stick for sexual orientation is just wrong.
Fat bastards can diet - gay folk can't become straight through weight watchers.
Oh, and I don't think folk 'choose' to be gay either, any more than you can 'choose' to be black.

Slavery was just an example, although I think you know that.

The choice element is something I hadn't considered. What about something like baldness then? People don't choose to go bald but it could still be targetted by football fans.

Yes. It could be. It isn't really though is it? And how many people have been imprisoned or murdered or even something as minor as being fired for being bald? It's bigotry. And there are a ton of places in the world where it's still a good chance you can be killed if you're gay. I've never seen someone been told to keep quiet and hide the fact they're bald so some inbred bigot doesn't have to feel funny because he secretly wants to fuck a dude.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think most of the people disagreeing are suggesting that the gay community aren't just looking for equality and acceptance, they're looking for everyone to stand up and make a point of acknowledging that they're equal and accepted.

A gay footballer would get abuse from the opposition fans because it's unusual, in the sense that most footballers aren't gay, not because they don't believe they should be allowed to be gay. If, for example, 20% of footballers were gay and all came out at once, there'd be a few chants in the first couple of weeks but that'd be it because it wouldn't be as unusual any more.

But heterosexual players don't face vile chants every week.
Brighton fans get that too, and most of them are straight.
That isn't really equality and acceptance, is it?
Imagine if folk did the same for black players.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racism, homophobia, sectarianism or whatever, and should not be tolerated.
Except for rags of course, who should be persecuted at every opportunity.
Even gay rags, although it should be made clear that it is the rag element that is being persecuted, rather than the gay one.

Heterosexual players don't face chants about being straight because it's the norm, and football chants directed at players come out of someone being different.

Football fans abuse opposition players for pretty much everything they can think of. Racism is excluded because of its history but there's not the same history of prejudice regarding sexuality, homosexuals were never enslaved by heterosexuals.

To me, singing 'you fat bastard' to Rooney for example would be no different to singing 'you queer bastard' to Chris Smalling if he was to come out. I have no problem in everyday life with people being fat just as I have no problem with people choosing to be gay. At the same time, I'm not going to stand up and make sure everyone knows I've got no problem with fat people because it shouldn't be necessary.

Do you really believe that?

 

[steviemc]

As much as I respect the gay community and empathise with the struggles they can face within society, I was pretty much against this idea, I think the laces should have been supplied if requested, perhaps after an initial letter to the clubs. By sending the laces to all clubs it makes it fairly easy to stigmatise those players and clubs who decide not to wear the laces as being homophobic.

 

[kenzie115]

Nope - they were put in concentration camps instead.
Sorry, but that 'if your people were never slaves then they are fair game for persecution' argument just doesn't hold up, because by implying that then you are legitimising any discrimination that doesn't involve slavery.
What about the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing, or the crusades?
There was no slavery involved, so are they fair game?
I take you point about players getting stick for being fat, but to get stick for sexual orientation is just wrong.
Fat bastards can diet - gay folk can't become straight through weight watchers.
Oh, and I don't think folk 'choose' to be gay either, any more than you can 'choose' to be black.

Slavery was just an example, although I think you know that.

The choice element is something I hadn't considered. What about something like baldness then? People don't choose to go bald but it could still be targetted by football fans.

Yes. It could be. It isn't really though is it? And how many people have been imprisoned or murdered or even something as minor as being fired for being bald? It's bigotry. And there are a ton of places in the world where it's still a good chance you can be killed if you're gay. I've never seen someone been told to keep quiet and hide the fact they're bald so some inbred bigot doesn't have to feel funny because he secretly wants to fuck a dude.

To me, singing 'you fat bastard' to Rooney for example would be no different to singing 'you queer bastard' to Chris Smalling if he was to come out.

Do you really believe that?

Maybe it’s an age thing, I’m only 24 and so people have been openly gay for all of my adult life and I’ve not known of any instances of anyone being fired or killed for being gay. To me your choice of sexuality is no different to your choice of footwear or clothing, your choice of drink on a night out or your choice of car. It’s something you decide on based on what gives you the most pleasure. However, as I alluded to before, people pick up on differences, particularly groups looking for some way to abuse someone (e.g. football fans). If a footballer dyed his hair pink he’d get abuse from the opposition fans, similarly if he came out as gay then he’d get abuse for that. As I said before, it’s not because people don’t think he has the right to be gay or want to kill him for it, but because it’s unusual and therefore can be targeted.

I realise I am now referring to it as a choice again, that’s because I’ve thought about it and have decided it is a choice. Njinsky argued before that just like being black, being gay wasn’t a choice. However, you have absolutely no control over the colour of your skin, I’m sure everyone will agree with that. On the other hand, you don’t have to have sex, we do it because we enjoy it, just like going out for a pint with your mates, or playing a sport, we do it for pleasure, it’s not a necessity. Homosexuals choose to be gay because they get more pleasure out of having sex with members of the same sex. I know people will argue that it’s not a choice because you can’t control how you feel but in my mind it’s just the same as me not wanting to play tiddlywinks, but really enjoying playing football. I could play tiddlywinks, but I don’t want to as I wouldn’t enjoy it. A gay man could have sex with a woman, but they don’t because they wouldn’t enjoy it. A black man cannot be white.

I’ve read this through twice now and it only just about makes sense to me so apologies if it sounds like a load of gobbledegook but I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.

 

[sniff]

really.. i wondered how long until the gay rights would be compared to the civil rights movement.. and fuck me its done in the most stupid way ive ever come across. How you can compare the two is pedantic as possible, and really just trying to comapre a situation to fit the argument. Unless this was about something completly different and a sexual preference has now become a race of people discriminated on nothing but apperance.

If you are gay, cool.. if you are not gay, Cool... i think society is as accepting of the gay community as with racism. We all know its not on to shout abuse, but we also know that pond life still manages to eek out an existance.

for me true accepance is only achived once you stop making a point of how different we all are.. until then you will always be pointing out how we are different... If you point out the difference constantly how can you be suprised some people think the way they do, when really we aint in any significant way different at all. You see, as a man who has been reffered to as a homophobe in the blog, i can fully understand how sexual preference makes no odds. a nob head is a nob head regardless of what minority they choose to be, the same applies in reverse.

One other thing that strikes me as very selfish about this campaign, is only homosexual males seem to be persecuted ? do we not need rainbow laces and t-shirts for the transvestites too ? i mean we all heard the songs about Ronaldo and Torres ? not an issue ?

You cant stad up shout and demand acceptance, its something that people have to come to terms with themselves. Unfortunatly football crowds seem to in the dark ages regarding political correctness, maybe the urge to show off and be the big man overides any common sense.. but i feel its an effort that really isnt needed.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Slavery was just an example, although I think you know that.

The choice element is something I hadn't considered. What about something like baldness then? People don't choose to go bald but it could still be targetted by football fans.

Yes. It could be. It isn't really though is it? And how many people have been imprisoned or murdered or even something as minor as being fired for being bald? It's bigotry. And there are a ton of places in the world where it's still a good chance you can be killed if you're gay. I've never seen someone been told to keep quiet and hide the fact they're bald so some inbred bigot doesn't have to feel funny because he secretly wants to fuck a dude.

To me, singing 'you fat bastard' to Rooney for example would be no different to singing 'you queer bastard' to Chris Smalling if he was to come out.

Do you really believe that?

Homosexuals choose to be gay because they get more pleasure out of having sex with members of the same sex.

That is utter gibberish.
Sexual orientation is innate, not a choice based on trying botty sex and liking it.

I’ve read this through twice now and it only just about makes sense to me so apologies if it sounds like a load of gobbledegook but I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.

No, not really.
I'll try again after a gram of ketamine.
It may make more sense then.