Thomas Hitzlsperger announces he is gay

Castiel said:
I have heard of him, but I agree, I have no idea why his sexual preference is anyones business or why he is being hailed a hero for announcing it...fifty years ago perhaps, but not today.
Click to expand...

As someone that knows about football/football culture, why is it that it's less of a big deal to you, but from what I've learned thanks to Tummy and others here that actually this is a really big deal within the football culture/environment.
 
Castiel said:
I have heard of him, but I agree, I have no idea why his sexual preference is anyones business or why he is being hailed a hero for announcing it...fifty years ago perhaps, but not today.
Click to expand...

Replace 'Football' with 'Army'.

A highly decorated soldier retires from the force but has been in the public eye, he then comes out as being gay. Would you not see that as a bold thing to do and maybe even give him some Kudos for doing it?

It's the same situation, a male orientated environment where there is lots of banter and sometimes the abuse and banter can be taken too far. He's not being hailed a hero for it, he is being given respect for coming out publically to obviously highlight the plight that gay footballers have to deal with.
 
Freefaller said:
As someone that knows about football/football culture, why is it that it's less of a big deal to you, but from what I've learned thanks to Tummy and others here that actually this is a really big deal within the football culture/environment.
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal per se, it's a bold thing to do (maybe not as bold as if he was still playing) but still would have took guts. The thought of 30,000 people calling you a queer every other weekend I imagine would put anyone off announcing to the world they're gay whilst still playing.

He's basically highlighting the fact that there is still a homophobic problem within the game. Take Rugby, players have come out as gay and got on with their lives but it is a different culture, Rugby games fans can mix with eachother, drink in the stands etc, you wouldn't expect a player to get abuse from the fans. Where as in football you can bet your house that he would receive abuse from the 1st minute to the 90th from the away fans.
 
G|mp said:
It's not a big deal per se, it's a bold thing to do (maybe not as bold as if he was still playing) but still would have took guts. The thought of 30,000 people calling you a queer every other weekend I imagine would put anyone off announcing to the world they're gay whilst still playing.

He's basically highlighting the fact that there is still a homophobic problem within the game. Take Rugby, players have come out as gay and got on with their lives but it is a different culture, Rugby games fans can mix with eachother, drink in the stands etc, you wouldn't expect a player to get abuse from the fans. Where as in football you can bet your house that he would receive abuse from the 1st minute to the 90th from the away fans.
Click to expand...

This is something I now understand better thanks to you guys - it's unbelievable that this attitude/behaviour still exists.

*troll comment* No wonder it's only neanderthals and low class people that like football. :p (I of course am teasing)
 
estebanrey said:
Stephen Fry makes a brilliant counter point when people try and use the "unnatural" line. As you've said homosexuality is abundant in nature, but only one animal has ever been found to display signs of homophobia (i.e. Humans).

So homophobia is far more unnatural than being gay is.
Click to expand...

Stephen Fry's arguments are as overrated as his wit.

That's not brilliant. Animals eat their own ****, their own babies and their own vomit. Only a few of them (and this isn't even proven) have sex for fun, so they're blatantly making a stupid mistake when they have sex with their own gender.

Using what animals do as a yardstick is the opposite of brilliant.
 
markusfen01 said:
What I'm trying to say is that going to a football match doesn't turn you into a bigot. It's a problem within society first and foremost.
Click to expand...

Ahh thanks for that, I couldn't figure out if you were having a pop at football fans or not. Just me being thick. :)
 
Lesbians need a happier profile too.
Something like 3-6 times more likely to cut themselves and 40% attempt suicide, yet they are practically invisible in the media (apart from Ellen and a few actors).

Off the top of my head I can't think of a single lesbian media figure under 35?
 
londonbairn said:
Can't believe in 2014 we still have "keyboard bigots". Who cares what race, religion, sexuality, etc etc someone is. Get over it
Click to expand...

I can't believe in 2014 you can't quote the person(s) you are talking about, thus allowing them to respond. What was your actual point? I couldn't work it out.
 
Angilion said:
The problem isn't whether or not any particular thing is normal. It's the idea that normal means "acceptable". Normal is just whatever happens most of the time. Everyone is abnormal in a variety of ways.

The whole "natural" argument is hypocritical nonsense anyway. It's of no relevance to anything and should be dismissed with disdain and ridicule until people stop pretending it matters. Or maybe everyone blathering about "natural" (by which they mean "something I agree with") meaning "right" and "unnatural" (by which they mean "something I disagree with") meaning "wrong" should be murdered - hey, murder is natural therefore it's good! The "natural" argument is utter rubbish, every time.
Click to expand...
It's a clear issue of semantics. As you say, everyone is abnormal in a variety of ways. This makes 'abormality' acceptable, moreover, expected. This is one counter to the 'homosexuality isn't normal' argument. The second is to say that as the definition of normal is "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected", and as we can very much expect to observe homosexual behaviour in various creatures and species, it is 'normal'. It's a ridiculous argument and it's why it has two ridiculous counter arguments.
Frightful Boar said:
Stephen Fry's arguments are as overrated as his wit.

That's not brilliant. Animals eat their own ****, their own babies and their own vomit. Only a few of them (and this isn't even proven) have sex for fun, so they're blatantly making a stupid mistake when they have sex with their own gender.

Using what animals do as a yardstick is the opposite of brilliant.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that it is a 'stupid mistake' - we don't really know for sure the reason for homosexuality. There are some theories, but none conclusive. However, as Angilion sates well it isn't harmful. There's also no harm from lack of biological offspring; in modern society reproduction is a choice, and in fact, there's nothing stopping homosexual couples increasing the size of the population more than heterosexual couples.
 
bitslice said:
Lesbians need a happier profile too.
Something like 3-6 times more likely to cut themselves and 40% attempt suicide, yet they are practically invisible in the media (apart from Ellen and a few actors).

Off the top of my head I can't think of a single lesbian media figure under 35?
Click to expand...

Probably because there are so few that it's actually hard to find? Or maybe it's some inherent misogyny somewhere down the line? (half the media seem to be queers, and I've never met a profile of person who is my misogynist than a gay)


estebanrey said:
Do you have a problem with black people being treated as 'normal' too? After all the a statistically a small proportion of the population so I guess screw them right?

Is it that you think gay people should "keep it to themselves" or that you think they get more representation than they deserve based on their population size?

If the latter I'd suggest you do a reality check. Statistically speaking 10% of the country are homosexual or bi-sexual, which is much higher than black people yet I'd bet a pound to a penny that black people are more represented in the media than gay people. I don't see gay people having their award shows shown on prime time ITV (MOBOs) or being given their own radio stations by the BBC (One Extra).
Click to expand...

Being treated normally? Where did I say they shouldn't be treated normally?

And yes, same goes for black, afford them all rights, but I fail to see how being black and a minority makes you anymore special or deserving of air time? Don't see how your example is at all relevant? Oh, let me guess, it's because you now want to charge me with racism because I don't pander to the race card.

Statistically most statistics are not right. Please cite the 10% figure with particular reference to new data. :)

And why would you think that I think over representation of black's means homosexuals should be similarly so? :confused:

PMKeates said:
Don't you find the idea that 'normal people' (defined by being the statistically most significant part of the population) should be the only part of the population that should be catered for a dangerous one?

Respect for the rights and freedoms of minority groups is an important part of making a sophisticated and modern civilisation and society work, whether that be about gender, race, sexuality, religion or a dozen other things. You also often have to 'over-represent' these minorities to ensure that there's at least 'a' voice. Homosexuality is also not that small a minority - most studies indicate a prevalence rate of 3-8%. At the lower end, that's one or two people per class at school, the population of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, the proportion of black people in the UK, more than the number of Hindus and similar to the number of Muslims, three times as many people in the UK who speak Welsh. It's also a minority that you cannot opt in and out of. Very little choice is involved.I don't think that argument holds much water, for several reasons.

1. I don't believe we have an active problem with biological reproduction. Homosexuality has been around as far back as records exist, and it hasn't prevented the population of the planet exploding.

2. People do not become homosexual because they decide to! If they have a sexual orientation that makes them enjoy the company of the same gender, they will seek out that gender. It's a classic case of "When did you decide to become straight?" - it doesn't happen. You may discover, but you never decide. Even active promotion of the validity of homosexuality as a perfectly fine and acceptable way to get your kicks and live happily ever after wouldn't change that.If we were talking about an incidence rate of 0.01% or something equally irregular (although that would still be 6000 people in the UK) then maybe I could accept that, but it's not. You've probably more chance of being homosexual than you have of rolling two sixes on a pair of dice.

What people are asking for isn't to be pandered to, but just accepted, and acceptance that being homosexual is normal. It's in nature. It's natural. For people not be opposed to two gay guys or girls holding hands at the beach, or having a kiss in the park.
Unfortunately the gay gene has taken it's fair share of 'sub-adonis' types :p
Click to expand...

No, I don't find it dangerous as long as there is an established and empowered protection of the basic rights. Aside from that I genuinely don't see what rights homosexuals should be given over their statistical presence. Why?! Why should a trait as personal as homosexuality be afforded more? Should everyone with "differing" views from the normal be afforded the same? If not why?

And your point about being accepted is moot. The overwhelming majority of people do not have a problem with homosexuality, the ide of being severely victimised is just pressure groups justifying themselves. Bit telling really that they have now taken their fight to other shores.....

Either way, you must concede that it isn't beyond the realms that people engaging in behaviour far outside of the norm (ONS states that 1.5% of Britain classifies them self as homosexual) are going to be perceived differently?
 
Freefaller said:
As someone that knows about football/football culture, why is it that it's less of a big deal to you, but from what I've learned thanks to Tummy and others here that actually this is a really big deal within the football culture/environment.
Click to expand...

Is it though?

There are bigots everywhere, in every walk of life, however homosexuality is accepted far more today in society than ever before...it is also given special protections (and rightly so) to enable people to live how they see fit and not be afraid of prejudice within their chosen profession. I find it overstated when someone famous or who already reached the pinnacle of their career 'comes out' tbh. Similarly with the forces. I served with two gay soldiers, it was never a big deal, not to me or anyone else, the one person who I recall made a comment on it got some pretty serious 'talking to'...essentially it's their business who they sleep with, not mine.

Sometimes I feel that some people live in the past and do not recognise that homophobia is not the issue to most people that they think it is. Just look at the reaction in Football to Thomas Hitzlberger, no one is condemning him, in fact everyone within football is happy for him, not condemning him. Fifty, or even thirty years ago, this would not have been the case. Equally with Tom Daley earlier this year. Neither of these people have been condemned for their sexuality, quite the opposite. How is this 'brave'? I understand it means something to the gay community as it gives them a degree of acceptance that perhaps some might feel they need, but I do not understand, in society as we are today, why people feel they need to hide their sexuality in the first place..this only perpetrates the illusion that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of when it is not. People should just be themselves from the outset, it is those people, particularly in the past that deserve our recognition, not those who hide their true self until the telling can no longer hurt them or their career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom