"A Good Cause Ruined"

[NorCalBlue]

Your sexual orientation is chosen by your parents at birth.

If you are given certain names like Joshua or Julian you will turn out homosexual.

I thought it was God's punishment for being bad in a former life.

 

[cibaman]

To be fair to Paddy Power the cause got far more publicity due to the 'reach' of his organisation. Without them I doubt very much if the campaign would have got off the ground at all. It was covered widely on all of the main radio stations and also the BBC TV.
Whilst Paddy Power is the ultimate self publicist he did what many others would not have done or didn't do and he pushed the campaign forward. It's easy for other to sit back and criticise - however he didn't just talk, he acted and all credit to him for that.

I did hear a comment from one player who said that asking a player to change his laces is not easy as they don't like messing with their 'kit' - which as anyone who has played at any level might well agree with and particularly if you are a professional player. These guys play for a living so I can understand that thought process.

Overall I would say the campaign achieved its objectives.

Is Paddy Power the bookie that is currently running a radio ad taking the mick out of "footballers wearing poncey hats"?

 

[johnmc]

Your sexual orientation is chosen by your parents at birth.

If you are given certain names like Joshua or Julian you will turn out homosexual.

I thought it was God's punishment for being bad in a former life.

You believe in life after death?? I suppose some people will believe anything.

 

[BlueMooney]

That blog post, although im sure written in the best of faith come's across quite bad IMO. Suggesting, no saying, people who do not see this as a huge pressing issue are "Homophobic" isnt really all that helpfull.

I wrote the blog. That's not what I said.

I said there are people who are homophobic. I said there is homophobia in football. I said the name of campaign doesn't help because it's a cheap little joke which those that are homophobic can laugh at and will reinforce bigoted opinions (which is not to say anyone who laughs IS homophobic: it's like saying that, on a football pitch, all goalkeepers wear gloves; but not all those who wear gloves are goalkeepers).

I did NOT say anybody who doesn't support the campaign is homophobic. Hell, I even said I would rather support a better organised campaign without commercial interests (the Kick It Out campaign doesn't have a sponsor in the sense this had Paddy Power). That would make me both gay and homophobic. That's far too black and white.

Whats the opinion, if you dont agree and do as i ask then you are homophobic ? in my case and im sure others, im certainly not that inclined to shout abuse at someone who leads a different lifestyle.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but I think it's getting at the same thing... Just because homophobes don't support the campaign, doesn't mean those who don't support the campaign are homophobic.

It all seems very one way, more so when you mention that paddy power, although trying to help and making this campaign national.. didnt quite do it in a way you would have done.. it all seems very one sided and like those god dam hetros just dont get it type rant.

What? It's got nothing to do with it being a campaign run by heterosexuals (is that even possible?). The gay charity Stonewall were involved in it. I said I was cynical by Paddy Power's motive - it's very good (and free) publicity for them when people are talking about it. I have no idea where you got the "those God damn heteros type rant" idea.

I fully support anyone being abused in anyway what so ever, in fact ive made a living out of just that for the past 12 years.. so please dont stoop to brand me and other as homophobic because we dont agree with the methods you use.

I didn't call anybody homophobic.

It comes across almost childish in away. i suggest you continue the work you are doing and raising levels of awareness, but in away that take's ownership.

Still no idea what you're talking about here. Being cynical about the motives of a corporation is childish? And I'm baffled by what your last sentence means.



As I said in the blog it is a good campaign, but it could have been so much better had Stonewall liaised with the Premier League and the clubs, rather than a bookmakers.

 

[blue fingers]

I think the sentiment (ie promoting acceptance and acknowledgement of equality) is all well and good, but only really holds water or has any true impact when it originates from the group supposedly emphasising the sentiment (in this case footballers). For any external/charitable group already working to convey this message (eg Stonewall) to approach others and ask them to support their point, is little more than lobbying. Once we arrive at this point (an agreement that this is lobbying), an individual's decision to either act 'supportively' (wear the laces) or not, is not likely to be straight forward.

Whilst I'm supportive of the work Stonewall do, if I were a footballer, I'd make it my business to not be lobbied by various agencies, no matter how admirable their cause, because how do you subsequently decide to not actively support a cause without seeming to actively not support it. In my opinion, the safest bet as a footballer would be to do nothing unless it is forced on you, and even then it can backfire (Glen Johnson and the Suarez tee shirt). That is not to say, of course, that supporting Stonewall by wearing the laces would be likely to backfire.

Whether it's missing kids, murdered kids, the death of royalty, the death of politicians, Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the death of a player, a recent natural disaster...(the list is endless), football is running the risk of becoming a melodramatic political football. I think it would be nice if there were less 'external' attempts at interference in football, as that's not what the game is about, for me. Football can't win as it now faces the accusation that it doesn't want to actively promote the acceptance and equality of all sexual orientations, because it doesn't want to be seen to be lobbi-able.

 

[NorCalBlue]

Your sexual orientation is chosen by your parents at birth.

If you are given certain names like Joshua or Julian you will turn out homosexual.

I thought it was God's punishment for being bad in a former life.

You believe in life after death?? I suppose some people will believe anything.

I believe in Glenn Hoddle...

 

[malg]

As I've said before, footballers coming out has fuck all to do with the attitude of fans and more to do with attitudes within football itself. A more male dominated 'society' you'd be hard pushed to find. The only homophobia knocking around is in the dressing rooms. This isn't even a fucking issue for normal working people any more.

 

[kenzie115]

No it isn't.
Sexual orientation is an attraction to a given sex.
It is not a choice.
Acting upon that attraction is a choice, but it is an action governed by the sexual orientation, which is not a choice.
Please tell me you understand now, even if you're lying.

I agree. However, you wouldn't need to come out unless you were going to choose to act on your sexual attraction, it'd be pointless. Therefore, being openly gay involves a choice.

Which brings me back to my original argument that if you're going to make a choice, there's a possibility people will highlight that choice, if it's different from the majority, and in terms of football crowds, that results in chants/abuse. However, I come back to the fact that they're not chanting because they disagree with people having the right to be gay, just because it's different. If half of all footballers were gay it wouldn't be an issue.

Sexuality isnt just sex though. You can be gay and never act on it in your life, this choice rubbish you're spouting makes no sense

You're being very nit picky now.

If you're not going to act on it then no-one would ever know your sexuality so the point becomes moot. If a footballer's gay but chooses never to act on it then how would the opposition fans know he was gay in order to shout abuse? They wouldn't. And if he did choose to act on it, then for me, like any choice you make, you should be happy with it and not give a shit if other people disagree.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I agree. However, you wouldn't need to come out unless you were going to choose to act on your sexual attraction, it'd be pointless. Therefore, being openly gay involves a choice.

Which brings me back to my original argument that if you're going to make a choice, there's a possibility people will highlight that choice, if it's different from the majority, and in terms of football crowds, that results in chants/abuse. However, I come back to the fact that they're not chanting because they disagree with people having the right to be gay, just because it's different. If half of all footballers were gay it wouldn't be an issue.

Sexuality isnt just sex though. You can be gay and never act on it in your life, this choice rubbish you're spouting makes no sense

You're being very nit picky now.

If you're not going to act on it then no-one would ever know your sexuality so the point becomes moot. If a footballer's gay but chooses never to act on it then how would the opposition fans know he was gay in order to shout abuse? They wouldn't. And if he did choose to act on it, then for me, like any choice you make, you should be happy with it and not give a shit if other people disagree.

He's not being 'nit picky' at all, he's simply telling it how it is.

This 'choice' stuff you're banging on about doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're obsessing about the physical act of sex, when that's just one part of being in a relationship.

What about a gay footballer who simply wants to be able to live happily and openly with his partner? Given that gay people have no greater propensity to fuck each other in their front gardens than straight people do, I imagine we'd never be privy to whether their partnership has been consummated or not. But we'd still know that they're gay.

To suggest that wishing to live a happy and fulfilled life is somehow a 'choice' is, frankly, absurd.

 

[kenzie115]

Sexuality isnt just sex though. You can be gay and never act on it in your life, this choice rubbish you're spouting makes no sense

You're being very nit picky now.

If you're not going to act on it then no-one would ever know your sexuality so the point becomes moot. If a footballer's gay but chooses never to act on it then how would the opposition fans know he was gay in order to shout abuse? They wouldn't. And if he did choose to act on it, then for me, like any choice you make, you should be happy with it and not give a shit if other people disagree.

He's not being 'nit picky' at all, he's simply telling it how it is.

This 'choice' stuff you're banging on about doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're obsessing about the physical act of sex, when that's just one part of being in a relationship.

What about a gay footballer who simply wants to be able to live happily and openly with his partner? Given that gay people have no greater propensity to fuck each other in their front gardens than straight people do, I imagine we'd never be privy to whether their partnership has been consummated or not. But we'd still know that they're gay.

To suggest that wishing to live a happy and fulfilled life is somehow a 'choice' is, frankly, absurd.

By choosing to start a relationship with another man they have made a choice. My original point regarding it being a choice was that that's how it differs from racism. As I said above, once they've made that choice they shouldn't care if some small minded individuals choose to highlight that choice and use it in a derogatory manner as part of a song. Football fans look for any opportunity to gain an advantage over the opposition and if they think they can throw a gay footballer of his game by singing about his sexuality they will. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't think he has the right to be gay or start a relationship with another man.