did anyone see the picture of Parrish the Palace Chairman in the Standard alongside an article moaning on about Ashley Young or hear him on Radio Five Live moaning on about Ashley Young ?I could not see or hear whether he was wearing "rainbow coloured" laces .Leave Ashley alone Parrish !
Been reading this thread whilst listening to our game. Just can't understand this contribution at all.
I think we're missing part of the issue here. There are two sides to this campaign, the first is that we need to create an environment in which "IF" a footballer wanted to come out publicly then they should be able to feel comfortable doing so, and shouldn't be the subject of abuse because of it. I think most of us agree that that is the right thing.
The second, however, is that it also sends out a message to other people, especially young people, who may be afraid of coming out to their family and friends because they fear the consequences. Whether we are happy about it or not footballers are some of the biggest role models in our society and if one were to come out it may make gay individuals think "he's gay and he's one of the top footballers in the world, what's to stop me feeling comfortable in who I am?" it may make a very difficult thing a little bit easier for them.
Anyway that's my two pence on this campaign.
Your second point is exactly the thinking behind the campaign.
As I said earlier in the thread, it's simply about acceptance - we just tell our children that my brother in law and his male partner love each other and live together, it doesn't need to be any more complex than that.
But only I know the kind of questions that my 9 and 10 year old girls are asking me. I don't want to have to start explaining to them about gay relationships at this stage when they are yet to even learn about the birds and the bees.
Your kids are seeing heterosexual couples living together because they are in love, and understanding that without any sexual element. What this gay marriage debate is about is not explaining how gay people have sex, but that gay people can marry and live together exactly like straight people. I understand that you want your kids to remain innocent, but there is no loss of innocence here.
Homosexuality is a minority activity although 423 posts and counting on Charlton Life might suggest otherwise!
The point I was trying to make is that not all those who have had homosexual experiences are homosexual as such even though it suits the "homosexual lobby" to inflate numbers by branding them so.
There can be many reasons why people experiment with members of their own sex from living in closed communities, to intense friendships etc, etc.
Reliable statistics are hard to come by but according to Kinsey (one of the foremost authorities on sexual behaviour) and his successor Gebhard around 37% of men and 13% of women have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.
Yet nowhere near those percentages would regard themselves as exclusively homosexual and indeed many live happy satisfying heterosexual lives and have no desire to repeat their homosexual performances.
Unfortunately homosexuality has become politicised as this thread demonstrates in the reactions to those such as Queensland who question the prevailing PC orthodoxy.
I have nothing against homosexuals (providing they don't ask me to join in) and indeed shared a house (not in a cohabiting sense) with one so know a little of what I speak.
One of the few fights I've ever been involved in was evening up the score between some "queer bashers" as they were known and a homosexual friend of my homosexual friend back in the seventies when "queer bashing" was in vogue.
Questioning the prevailing orthodoxy does not make one homophobic even though it suits those who wish to closedown debate to assert as such. A bit like branding anyone racist who questions the number of immigrants entering the country.
I will leave it there as some will inevitably seek to misrepresent and smear as has happened to Queensland and life is too short frankly for that nonsense.
anton hysen official @antonhysenoffic My laces are on the way to me in Sweden, cant wait to wear them on the pitch as an out proud gay footballer. #RGBF Retweeted by ShowRacismtheRedCard
Just read the thoughts of a Gay Fan on the Trust website. Interesting.
About 2 or 3 years ago, I cant even remember the dire game but we were in League one and I brought a few US work colleagues along to their first ever football match. Was about 6 of us and one was my gay colleague and his partner. They are not overly camp looking but maybe in their speech. I'm really try to word this correctly without offending anyone - what a minefield. Anyway I was actually a bit nervous about this and booked tickets in the quiet part of the East Stand as I was worried that someone might hear them and say something offensive and I would be absolutely mortified. So i can see why the writer of the article's friends would worry. Actually i vaguely remember there being a short burst of the ref takes it up the wotsit but dont think they understood but i was cringing.
Anyway no one said anything and they had a great time, massive afternoon out on the piss and even ended up in the Rose and Crown about midnight. Now that was an eye opener.
Homosexuality is a minority activity although 423 posts and counting on Charlton Life might suggest otherwise!
The point I was trying to make is that not all those who have had homosexual experiences are homosexual as such even though it suits the "homosexual lobby" to inflate numbers by branding them so.
There can be many reasons why people experiment with members of their own sex from living in closed communities, to intense friendships etc, etc.
Reliable statistics are hard to come by but according to Kinsey (one of the foremost authorities on sexual behaviour) and his successor Gebhard around 37% of men and 13% of women have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.
Yet nowhere near those percentages would regard themselves as exclusively homosexual and indeed many live happy satisfying heterosexual lives and have no desire to repeat their homosexual performances.
Unfortunately homosexuality has become politicised as this thread demonstrates in the reactions to those such as Queensland who question the prevailing PC orthodoxy.
I have nothing against homosexuals (providing they don't ask me to join in) and indeed shared a house (not in a cohabiting sense) with one so know a little of what I speak.
One of the few fights I've ever been involved in was evening up the score between some "queer bashers" as they were known and a homosexual friend of my homosexual friend back in the seventies when "queer bashing" was in vogue.
Questioning the prevailing orthodoxy does not make one homophobic even though it suits those who wish to closedown debate to assert as such. A bit like branding anyone racist who questions the number of immigrants entering the country.
I will leave it there as some will inevitably seek to misrepresent and smear as has happened to Queensland and life is too short frankly for that nonsense.
Every time I read a post from you on this thread I can't help but feel that there is an underlying personal experience involved. What to share? We're all friends here (but not intense you understand)
Personally I don't care if a footballer is gay or not - you just don't want it rammed down your throat all the time. Most gay footballers are as professional as straight players. They don't mind being pulled off at half time or changing ends. Let's hear no more about it.
Actually there is serious side to my comments. Basically who gives a damn if a footballer is gay or not ? I turn up to watch a footballer play football & nothing else. If he can do the job then what does it matter ? It shouldn't matter to anyone in my opinion.
Homosexuality is a minority activity although 423 posts and counting on Charlton Life might suggest otherwise!
The point I was trying to make is that not all those who have had homosexual experiences are homosexual as such even though it suits the "homosexual lobby" to inflate numbers by branding them so.
There can be many reasons why people experiment with members of their own sex from living in closed communities, to intense friendships etc, etc.
Reliable statistics are hard to come by but according to Kinsey (one of the foremost authorities on sexual behaviour) and his successor Gebhard around 37% of men and 13% of women have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.
Yet nowhere near those percentages would regard themselves as exclusively homosexual and indeed many live happy satisfying heterosexual lives and have no desire to repeat their homosexual performances.
Unfortunately homosexuality has become politicised as this thread demonstrates in the reactions to those such as Queensland who question the prevailing PC orthodoxy.
I have nothing against homosexuals (providing they don't ask me to join in) and indeed shared a house (not in a cohabiting sense) with one so know a little of what I speak.
One of the few fights I've ever been involved in was evening up the score between some "queer bashers" as they were known and a homosexual friend of my homosexual friend back in the seventies when "queer bashing" was in vogue.
Questioning the prevailing orthodoxy does not make one homophobic even though it suits those who wish to closedown debate to assert as such. A bit like branding anyone racist who questions the number of immigrants entering the country.
I will leave it there as some will inevitably seek to misrepresent and smear as has happened to Queensland and life is too short frankly for that nonsense.
Every time I read a post from you on this thread I can't help but feel that there is an underlying personal experience involved. What to share? We're all friends here (but not intense you understand)
Nothing personal at all.
I just don't like the bullying attitude and political agenda of some within the homosexual lobby and their insistence that anyone who has had homosexual experience is homosexual and have said so on a forum that theoretically allows debate.
As I've tried to demonstrate in my two previous posts that is arrant nonsense and for the likes of Stonewall to be given the credibility that they represent all homosexuals with their hectoring, bullying, aggressive attitudes is akin to suggesting that Al Qaeda represent all muslims or the IRA represent all catholics because of their terrorism.
You'd berate me unmercifully if I made that comment about muslims (I realise that as Christians the PC lobby don't protect catholics) and you'd have a point.
Why is it so wrong to raise a similar issue regarding the self appointed representatives of homosexuals?
Depends how you use the term. If it's used for offensive then it's offensive...
Goes for pretty much anything, Black, White, Ginger, 4 eyes, Fat, Lanky etc
Where does the term 'poof' originate, I am just surprised that this particular term was highlighted in the article over others as being offensive
Well considering the article is about a gay man, it's more offensive to him. No-one ever calls someone a 'poof' in a positive light, it's almost always negative. As if that player is lesser because he's got a funny haircut or put in a bad tackle and it automatically makes him gay.
I work with a guy who is in a civil partnershp with a Championship footballer. All his teamates are aware he's gay - he just doesn't want to be open about it, mainly because of the abuse he know's he'll get from the terraces.
That seems very odd. Gay blokes moaned and protested for years for there gay relationships to be public and the law was changed to allow gay civil partnerships. Now addickted is telling us about his work colleague who is a gay civil partnership with a gay championship footballer, but the whole thing is some sort of state secret as the happy participants in this gay union are scared that people might find out!
Civil Partnerships aren't solely about making your love for one another public. They also give you certain tax considerations, state benefits, pensions & legal rights (such as wills etc).
I work with a guy who is in a civil partnershp with a Championship footballer. All his teamates are aware he's gay - he just doesn't want to be open about it, mainly because of the abuse he know's he'll get from the terraces.
That seems very odd. Gay blokes moaned and protested for years for there gay relationships to be public and the law was changed to allow gay civil partnerships. Now addickted is telling us about his work colleague who is a gay civil partnership with a gay championship footballer, but the whole thing is some sort of state secret as the happy participants in this gay union are scared that people might find out!
Civil Partnerships aren't solely about making your love for one another public. They also give you certain tax considerations, state benefits, pensions & legal rights (such as wills etc).
It gets worse! The suggestion now is that the reason that this unnamed, over paid, under worked gay championship footballer has civil paternershipped his boyfriend is to avoid paying tax on his hefty wage packet. Schools, hospitals and public works don't appear by magic. Maybe the tax dodging gay footballer has other reasons that he doesn't want anyone to know.
Aren't you the enlightened chap that said the horrors taking place in Syria were the fault of people who demonstrated against the Iraq war a decade ago ?
I suggest you re read the Syria thread. When you struggle with a big word, just let me know and I'll help you.
Not too many big words here old boy (and I've copied the entire opening paragraph of your diatribe so I can't be accused of taking the odd sentence out of context):
Smudge7946 "The blame for the sad recent events in the middle east lies directly with the estimated one million left wing soap dodging naïve idiots that thought they were being so clever, high and mighty by getting on the 'not in my name' band wagon and demonstrating against the Iraq war ten years ago."
Well done for taking the time to do that. If you want to respond please do so on the Syria. I would be interested in hearing a considered response rather than Just abuse.
Homosexuality is a minority activity although 423 posts and counting on Charlton Life might suggest otherwise!
The point I was trying to make is that not all those who have had homosexual experiences are homosexual as such even though it suits the "homosexual lobby" to inflate numbers by branding them so.
There can be many reasons why people experiment with members of their own sex from living in closed communities, to intense friendships etc, etc.
Reliable statistics are hard to come by but according to Kinsey (one of the foremost authorities on sexual behaviour) and his successor Gebhard around 37% of men and 13% of women have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.
Yet nowhere near those percentages would regard themselves as exclusively homosexual and indeed many live happy satisfying heterosexual lives and have no desire to repeat their homosexual performances.
Unfortunately homosexuality has become politicised as this thread demonstrates in the reactions to those such as Queensland who question the prevailing PC orthodoxy.
I have nothing against homosexuals (providing they don't ask me to join in) and indeed shared a house (not in a cohabiting sense) with one so know a little of what I speak.
One of the few fights I've ever been involved in was evening up the score between some "queer bashers" as they were known and a homosexual friend of my homosexual friend back in the seventies when "queer bashing" was in vogue.
Questioning the prevailing orthodoxy does not make one homophobic even though it suits those who wish to closedown debate to assert as such. A bit like branding anyone racist who questions the number of immigrants entering the country.
I will leave it there as some will inevitably seek to misrepresent and smear as has happened to Queensland and life is too short frankly for that nonsense.
Every time I read a post from you on this thread I can't help but feel that there is an underlying personal experience involved. What to share? We're all friends here (but not intense you understand)
Nothing personal at all.
I just don't like the bullying attitude and political agenda of some within the homosexual lobby and their insistence that anyone who has had homosexual experience is homosexual and have said so on a forum that theoretically allows debate.
As I've tried to demonstrate in my two previous posts that is arrant nonsense and for the likes of Stonewall to be given the credibility that they represent all homosexuals with their hectoring, bullying, aggressive attitudes is akin to suggesting that Al Qaeda represent all muslims or the IRA represent all catholics because of their terrorism.
You'd berate me unmercifully if I made that comment about muslims (I realise that as Christians the PC lobby don't protect catholics) and you'd have a point.
Why is it so wrong to raise a similar issue regarding the self appointed representatives of homosexuals?
"PC - making middle England paranoid since 1968"...
Comments
As I said earlier in the thread, it's simply about acceptance - we just tell our children that my brother in law and his male partner love each other and live together, it doesn't need to be any more complex than that.
Homosexuality is a minority activity although 423 posts and counting on Charlton Life might suggest otherwise!
The point I was trying to make is that not all those who have had homosexual experiences are homosexual as such even though it suits the "homosexual lobby" to inflate numbers by branding them so.
There can be many reasons why people experiment with members of their own sex from living in closed communities, to intense friendships etc, etc.
Reliable statistics are hard to come by but according to Kinsey (one of the foremost authorities on sexual behaviour) and his successor Gebhard around 37% of men and 13% of women have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
Yet nowhere near those percentages would regard themselves as exclusively homosexual and indeed many live happy satisfying heterosexual lives and have no desire to repeat their homosexual performances.
Unfortunately homosexuality has become politicised as this thread demonstrates in the reactions to those such as Queensland who question the prevailing PC orthodoxy.
I have nothing against homosexuals (providing they don't ask me to join in) and indeed shared a house (not in a cohabiting sense) with one so know a little of what I speak.
One of the few fights I've ever been involved in was evening up the score between some "queer bashers" as they were known and a homosexual friend of my homosexual friend back in the seventies when "queer bashing" was in vogue.
Questioning the prevailing orthodoxy does not make one homophobic even though it suits those who wish to closedown debate to assert as such. A bit like branding anyone racist who questions the number of immigrants entering the country.
I will leave it there as some will inevitably seek to misrepresent and smear as has happened to Queensland and life is too short frankly for that nonsense.
anton hysen official @antonhysenoffic
My laces are on the way to me in Sweden, cant wait to wear them on the pitch as an out proud gay footballer. #RGBF
Retweeted by ShowRacismtheRedCard
About 2 or 3 years ago, I cant even remember the dire game but we were in League one and I brought a few US work colleagues along to their first ever football match. Was about 6 of us and one was my gay colleague and his partner. They are not overly camp looking but maybe in their speech. I'm really try to word this correctly without offending anyone - what a minefield. Anyway I was actually a bit nervous about this and booked tickets in the quiet part of the East Stand as I was worried that someone might hear them and say something offensive and I would be absolutely mortified. So i can see why the writer of the article's friends would worry. Actually i vaguely remember there being a short burst of the ref takes it up the wotsit but dont think they understood but i was cringing.
Anyway no one said anything and they had a great time, massive afternoon out on the piss and even ended up in the Rose and Crown about midnight. Now that was an eye opener.
and shortly a Laces article
Let's hear no more about it.
I just don't like the bullying attitude and political agenda of some within the homosexual lobby and their insistence that anyone who has had homosexual experience is homosexual and have said so on a forum that theoretically allows debate.
As I've tried to demonstrate in my two previous posts that is arrant nonsense and for the likes of Stonewall to be given the credibility that they represent all homosexuals with their hectoring, bullying, aggressive attitudes is akin to suggesting that Al Qaeda represent all muslims or the IRA represent all catholics because of their terrorism.
You'd berate me unmercifully if I made that comment about muslims (I realise that as Christians the PC lobby don't protect catholics) and you'd have a point.
Why is it so wrong to raise a similar issue regarding the self appointed representatives of homosexuals?
I do think he should come to a game, it may be eye opening
http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/09/18/blues-show-their-colours
thats the way to respond. A call that a draw 1-1 so kiss n make up. Platonically of course
Where does the term 'poof' originate, I am just surprised that this particular term was highlighted in the article over others as being offensive
No-one ever calls someone a 'poof' in a positive light, it's almost always negative. As if that player is lesser because he's got a funny haircut or put in a bad tackle and it automatically makes him gay.
You do make me laugh Len. Don't you ever change.