The Only Gay In The Vickarage

[Daggers]

How come that in 2006 it is possible to be gay and sucessful in any avenue of life except football? What is it about this sport that prevents players, managers and coaches from be able to be publically 'out'?

What do you reckon needs to be done?

[Guest]

It needs more honesty from those within the game and a lot of bravery from someone to start the ball rolling.

It also needs people's attitudes to change. Football fans can be ignorant at times (sweeping generalisation alert).

Bringing back the old terrace humour? Spontaneous chants that were genuinely funny are no more.

[Thracian]

Why this eternal need to be "out" or otherwise?. I see no problem with a gay footballer being successful and cannot understand why that should somehow require a footballer to come "out".

It is not a requirement of successful footballers to declare that they like plane spotting or collecting stamps or making miniature carvings of their toenails. Why the need to turn playing football into a social/political statement?

As a fan I go to watch football because it interests and sometimes excites me. If I ever thought about it, which I haven't before reading this thread, it is inevitable that some of the players I am watching happen to be gay. But what has that got to do with football and what the hell does it matter?.

Why this coercion of people to express their innermost thoughts on anything anyway? Are we all voyeurs?

I actually believe huge numbers of us are and it is connected with a need to convince ourselves that we are somehow normal or not alone with those innermost feelings.

And why use football or anything else as a vehicle for attempted public manipulation?

People are no different in the 21st century to the way they've been since the dawn of time. Some are straight, some are gay, some are both and some aren't sure what the hell they are.

I say live your own life by your own beliefs and principles by all means but leave others to sort out theirs. If this were applied worldwide I am sure we'd live in a better world and in greater harmony.

I could argue that the involunatry manipulation or attempted manipulation of one person's thoughts and deeds by another is the greatest sin of all.

If you make a statement (as a footballer would in declaring he is gay) then you risk making people in that (non sexual) environment potentially uncomfortable just as you might if you said you fancied pre-pubescent girls, if you confessed to having sex 15 times a night or to having different multi-national lovers every day of the week.

It is not the time and place for such statements. Football clubs are about football.

[Guest]

It's like a freak show; someone's not 'normal' so they must be paraded around. It's a lack of self-confidence, I suppose those that are trying to expose must feel so much better about themselves for finding a so called weakness in our celebrities.

On the other hand, these people put themselves into the spotlight.

[Daggers]

I could argue that mass media is the curse of mankind and represents the greatest threat to the long term future of human beings.

...because without it the feudal system worked SO well

[Daggers]

Why this eternal need to be "out" or otherwise?

I think it comes down to not that someone 'should be' but would feel comfortable enough that they 'could be'.

I reckon it is a piss poor reflection on us all that love the game that we have contributed to the situation where gay players are actively afraid of being outed - and players resort to legal action if it is insinuated they are gay.

It reminds me of the days when everyone said we didn't have a racism problem within the game, it's full of Big Ron's that seriously do not believe they are a problem.

Imagine the clandestine nature of a gay footballer's life - the hiding, the furtive darting to avoid gossips and camera's. It simply isn't fair. Why can't they expect to live their life in the same way that anyone else does?

[Thracian]

I think it comes down to not that someone 'should be' but would feel comfortable enough that they 'could be'.

I reckon it is a piss poor reflection on us all that love the game that we have contributed to the situation where gay players are actively afraid of being outed - and players resort to legal action if it is insinuated they are gay.

It reminds me of the days when everyone said we didn't have a racism problem within the game, it's full of Big Ron's that seriously do not believe they are a problem.

Imagine the clandestine nature of a gay footballer's life - the hiding, the furtive darting to avoid gossips and camera's. It simply isn't fair. Why can't they expect to live their life in the same way that anyone else does?

Big Ron's only a problem if you believe his view is any more important than anyone else's. Personally I don't give a shit what Big Ron says, even about football.

Leesoh mentions weaknesses in personalities. Big Ron's made a mistake. The

media turned it into a big deal. Personalities are all just vulnerable individuals whose ability in a certain field, in our society, sometimes gives them a bigger voice than they usually deserve.

But that's only if you're daft enough to believe the myth that these people are (other than their particular abilities) any better or more important than anyone else which I don't.

I've been lucky enough to meet lots of such people and believe me they piss and shit like the rest of us.

Which leads me to you other point about me (and others who love the game) contributing to gay players being afraid of being "outed".

Who are these thousands of contributors?. I've not contributed to that at all. I don't give a damn and I doubt many others do.

I just don't want football used as the tool for a social/political sexual crusade whether it be on behalf of homosexuals, child molesters, the New Labour anti-marriage lobby or Bigamists Incorporated.

[Rincewind]

Have you seen the way some footballers celebrate after a goal?

[macbeth]

Have you seen the way some footballers celebrate after a goal?

'It's a far cry from small boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts. Isn't it? Mmmmm. Marvellous

[Thracian]

...because without it the feudal system worked SO well

I'm getting on, so you may not believe this, but I can't actually remember the feudal system.

[Swedging]

I just don't want football used as the tool for a social/political sexual crusade whether it be on behalf of homosexuals, child molesters

If you make a statement (as a footballer would in declaring he is gay) then you risk making people in that (non sexual) environment potentially uncomfortable just as you might if you said you fancied pre-pubescent girls

What's with this continued comparison between being gay and paedophilia?

[macbeth]

some gays revel in being drama queens;

daffyd thomas sums up the type to perfection

get over it gays!!! you are accepted; move on

[Thracian]

What's with this continued comparison between being gay and paedophilia?

No-one is making any sort of comparison. Please explain where a comparison is made or remotely implicated.

I mentioned such people because I imagine they might well feel themselves victims of the sort of intollerance (justified or otherwise) which homosexuals seem to be complaining about in respect of football.

And don't be so reactionary. Some homosexuals are already campaigning for 14 to be the age of consent - or even younger. In some societies sexual activity is common at a very young age.

It is not something I would be comfortable with but are those other societies necessarily wrong given the epidemic of miserable relationships we seem to have nowadays?

I happen to believe that, generally 16 is plenty young enough for the age of any sort of sexual consent in our society although there are, arguably, exceptions and numerous examples of people younger than 16 becoming involved in what proves to be a very long relationship.

Indeed I was only 16 when I met my own wife and that was nearly 40 years (and three sons) ago. I doubt I'd have felt any less excited by her had we met at 15.

[Swedging]

No-one is making any sort of comparison. Please explain where a comparison is made or remotely implicated.

In the quotes I provided. "Just as you might" being a dead give-away, like. As would be grouping things together as if they shared characteristics.

[Thracian]

In the quotes I provided. "Just as you might" being a dead give-away, like. As would be grouping things together as if they shared characteristics.

The comparison is in the discomfort felt not between homosexuals and someone who fancied PP-girls.

The lists were only of others who might fancy a socio/political campaign - I could have mentional animal rights organisations, Keep Britain Tidy, Real Ale groups but it was using football to campaign on sexuality which was under discussion.

[Daggers]

The point is that there is an issue regarding sexuality within football.

I could not give a stuff what legal things lights your bulb, and resent being made to listen to it when someone vents forth, but the fact that the whole issue is swept under the carpet is wrong; that homosexuality is used as a pitchside/terrace slur is wrong; that not one manager defends the concept of having a gay player in the squad is wrong.

If you hear someone screaming "you black bastard!" you would (I assume) either

• stare at the offender, or
  
• speak to the offender, or
  
• speak to a steward, or
  
• refer the matter to a PC
  

So, why is it ok for people to use sexuality as a form of verbal abuse?

You may not like politics being involved in footy - but life is politics/politics is life. The concept of equality of opportunity covers all aspects of life.

If you are not part of a solution, you a part of a problem.

[macbeth]

The point is that there is an issue regarding sexuality within football.

I could not give a stuff what legal things lights your bulb, and resent being made to listen to it when someone vents forth, but the fact that the whole issue is swept under the carpet is wrong; that homosexuality is used as a pitchside/terrace slur is wrong; that not one manager defends the concept of having a gay player in the squad is wrong.

If you hear someone screaming "you black bastard!" you would (I assume) either

• stare at the offender, or
  
• speak to the offender, or
  
• speak to a steward, or
  
• refer the matter to a PC
  

So, why is it ok for people to use sexuality as a form of verbal abuse?

You may not like politics being involved in footy - but life is politics/politics is life. The concept of equality of opportunity covers all aspects of life.

If you are not part of a solution, you a part of a problem.

i like being part of a problem ; being part of a solution sounds wishy washy and watered down

[Thracian]

"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem."

You sound just like Stalin or Hitler or Mao because that was exactly their approach.

Milder people had the same philosophy granted but they all had one thing in common - they were convinced they were not only right but also had some unexplained authority to force their views on others.

Who the hell are you to categorise people into convenient units?.

I have mentioned before. I follow my own doctrine, not someone else's. What right have I to dictate what others should stand for and believe in?.

If you chose to follow something I believed in because it fitted your own philosophy then fair enough but it should be your choice not something forced on you by some social/political/religious missionary.

Achieve sainthood for yourself before you judge others.

So to say if I am not part of the solution I am part of the problem is rhetorical nonsense.

I don't cheer footballers on the basis of their sexual orientation - who the hell does? But why people cheer is their businesses.

As for the "black bastard" comment I happen to respect freedom of speech. Not the sort of freedom which deletes anything which someone might not wish to hear.

That's not freedom of speech it is censorship and it patronises people.

I think that freedom of speech, indeed all freedoms are precious. Social brainwashing doesn't impress one bit and you can call me an English/Welsh, white/black/brown/upper/middle/lower class arsehole as much as you like, I've more important things to worry about.

I've been called a gypsy, a poof, a willy puller, a fat-thighed, bow-legged fancy dan, all sorts of things in all sorts of places during my sporting life - especially when I'd done something to hurt them like score a goal or win a penalty - and mostly I considered it a compliment if anything because I'd got at them.

It happens that the beliefs I hold wouldn't allow me to make a "black bastard" comment unless I were being severely provoked because I simply don't think like that.

However, even if I did it wouldn't mean I hated or was disrespectful to blacks generally, or that I didn't have black friends, or wanted all blacks deported or some such nonsense. People are called scouse gits every day - and on television not so long ago before television gotneutered by the PC brigade.

It would simply mean a black guy (who I might well be pals with by the morning) was irritating the hell out of me and I was getting pissed off.

If, as you asked, someone football fan near me said that, then I would treat him with the contempt he deserved.

And, of course, if enough people ignored him, silently treated him with that same contempt then he might well learn better ways - and more permanently - than he would with your dictatorial and bullying approach.

But speak to a steward or a PC? You're joking.

The PC who arrested the guy might likely as not be thinking the same thing and besides, that sort of tipping the authorities is the sort of thing which got people a morning call in Russia and I don't want to encourage it here, thanks.

It has become a fast-growing trend under this Government and it makes me sick in every insidious form.

As for involving football with politics to campaign for homosexuals, I love football (rather as I love my wife) and I certainly wouldn't want that beauty being besmirched by some opportunist using either as a vehicle to conduct totally inappropriate socio/political campaigning...and especially by such a clearly dictatorial, single minded and authoritarian campaigner as yourself.

Although I'm a long-married heterosexual, I don't have a problem with gay footballers.

I doubt many people do, but I don't know for sure because it is not a subject that has ever cropped up with the fans around me in close to 50 years.

But there are plenty of newspapers/magazines/radio stations to write to if you wish to conduct a campaign - and good luck to you - rather than devaluing my weekend entertainment.

As far as I am concerned you are worse than people carrying mobile phones on a golf course. You impose things on people that they don't want.

[macbeth]

quite right thracian :thumbup:self pitying egg-shell personalities who want to use any forum for gay issues;

as you say there are plenty of pressure groups for this;

[Daggers]

...You sound just like Stalin or Hitler or Mao...

...Who the hell are you to categorise people into convenient units?...

...Achieve sainthood for yourself before you judge others...

...your dictatorial and bullying approach...

But speak to a steward or a PC? You're joking.

...and especially by such a clearly dictatorial, single minded and authoritarian campaigner as yourself...

...you are worse than people carrying mobile phones on a golf course. You impose things on people that they don't want.

Oi! Calm down.

Have you even bothered to read a word I wrote Thracian?

Cite me please where I have 'campaigned'? I posed a few questions for debate and you throw yourself in at the abusive deep end.

Keep your personal vitriolic attacks to yourself and display to others the respect they demonstrate to you.

I have not "imposed" anything, I have not "campaigned" for anything.

This is a forum for debate - I am debating. I humbly apologise if you miscontstrued anything I wrote as offensive, that was certainly not the intention. I found your reply to be deeply offensive.

[Ultra]

No-one is making any sort of comparison. Please explain where a comparison is made or remotely implicated.

I mentioned such people because I imagine they might well feel themselves victims of the sort of intollerance (justified or otherwise) which homosexuals seem to be complaining about in respect of football.

And don't be so reactionary. Some homosexuals are already campaigning for 14 to be the age of consent - or even younger. In some societies sexual activity is common at a very young age.

And a lot of heterosexuals are disregarding the age of consent as it stands - as shown by the number of teenage pregnancies.

For the record there is NO evidence of a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and we should avoid comments which explicitly or implicitly suggest otherwise.

[macbeth]

Oi! Calm down.

Have you even bothered to read a word I wrote Thracian?

Cite me please where I have 'campaigned'? I posed a few questions for debate and you throw yourself in at the abusive deep end.

Keep your personal vitriolic attacks to yourself and display to others the respect they demonstrate to you.

I have not "imposed" anything, I have not "campaigned" for anything.

This is a forum for debate - I am debating. I humbly apologise if you miscontstrued anything I wrote as offensive, that was certainly not the intention. I found your reply to be deeply offensive.

I know this reply is meant for thracian but at first reading i did in general terms agree with his sentiments ;

mainly because the parting shot of " if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem is quite antagonising

ie; it is giving the reader some sort of need to join a moral crusade for "gay rights for gay people"( as daffyd would say)

but you are quite right, on second reading that there was no need for such a strident response :

and keep up the good topic starting

[Daggers]

I know this reply is meant for thracian but at first reading i did in general terms agree with his sentiments ;

mainly because the parting shot of " if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem is quite antagonising

ie; it is giving the reader some sort of need to join a moral crusade for "gay rights for gay people"( as daffyd would say)

but you are quite right, on second reading that there was no need for such a strident response :

and keep up the good topic starting

Thank you

I understand your point, maybe I should extend the question:

I reckon that if Gary and Michele can go to an evening function together then so could Sol and Ashley. My question is why don't they? (Rather than WE MUST CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR RIGHT TO!)

What is it about football above any other aspect of modern life that precludes homosexual couples? Is it simply that WAGs are more interesting than WAGABs?

I don't know, I don't have the answers, but I am sure interested to understand what some others of you think.

If you subscribe to a credo that everyone is entitled to equal rights then there has to be a reason why gay football players do not attend events with their partners. I would suggest that this means they feel in some way prohibited. This therefore means that there is a problem with equal rights - and if there is a problem there has to exist something that is preventing its resolution.

Therefore, tongue in cheek, I suggest (using the tired and well worn phrase) if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem. But is that not the case? Is there something within our general attitudes and actions that is contributing to this? *donning flame proof jacket*

I don't have the answers, I am not pontificating, just discussing...

[Thracian]

And a lot of heterosexuals are disregarding the age of consent as it stands - as shown by the number of teenage pregnancies.

For the record there is NO evidence of a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and we should avoid comments which explicitly or implicitly suggest otherwise.

What has your first paragraph got to do with the comment highlighted in black. I am not aware of a heterosexual campaign to lower the age of consent (though there might be one).

Notwithstanding the above there never was a comparison - someone tried to invent one - though as you mention it virtually every court case I've read involving a homosexual has also involved the young or very young including one which was recently plastered all over the front page of the Mercury.

If that was not a link I don't know what you mean by the word link.

Anyway regarding the football campaign and sticking to what is legal, perhaps we will also have S&M campaigns, surely the Lesbian's will want their own and what about a few others just in case the football fails to inspire?

Perhaps we can also issue "In Season" tickets and get the Blacks on Blondes rep to do the half-time talk...after all it wouldn't be fair to miss any preferences out, would it?.

Football would never be the same again and, who knows, perhaps with a big screen presentation before the match maybe we'd even fill the empty seats in the ground.

Seriously don't you people get it. Sex is never far away in today's lurid and soul-selling society but surely we can do without it at the football thanks.

[macbeth]

Thank you

I understand your point, maybe I should extend the question:

I reckon that if Gary and Michele can go to an evening function together then so could Sol and Ashley. My question is why don't they? (Rather than WE MUST CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR RIGHT TO!)

What is it about football above any other aspect of modern life that precludes homosexual couples? Is it simply that WAGs are more interesting than WAGABs?

I don't know, I don't have the answers, but I am sure interested to understand what some others of you think.

If you subscribe to a credo that everyone is entitled to equal rights then there has to be a reason why gay football players do not attend events with their partners. I would suggest that this means they feel in some way prohibited. This therefore means that there is a problem with equal rights - and if there is a problem there has to exist something that is preventing its resolution.

Therefore, tongue in cheek, I suggest (using the tired and well worn phrase) if you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem. But is that not the case? Is there something within our general attitudes and actions that is contributing to this? *donning flame proof jacket*

I don't have the answers, I am not pontificating, just discussing...

i think these questions should be asked to gay people, because gay footballers DO have the RIGHT to do these things but choose not to; somehow the onus has shifted to the rest of us to positively encourage them .

there seems to be confusion between a right to do something, and a persons choice not to take this up.

so imo the ball is in the court of gays whether to face up to their own sexuality or not .