Thomas Hitzlsperger announces he is gay

MrStuffins

golfball37 wrote: »

Its not normal in any way shape or form in my opinion. Society would cease if were all "normal" if that were the case.

Well you're entitled to your opinion. And ,y opinion is that your opinion is backwards.

I have nothing against HS's at all and they should be treated as normal people with the right not to be abused, what they practice however is far from normal imo.

What is it that they practice exactly? Gay sex?

Unless you're in the room when it's happening, I don't see how it should concern you

GLaDOS

Fair play to him, hopefully the generally positive reaction will make other gay footballers a bit more comfortable.

dreamers75

dreamers75 wrote: »

worth a read


http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/graeme-le-saux-how-gay-slurs-almost-wrecked-my-career/

Lost a lot of respect for Robbie Fowler reading that.

Skylinehead

golfball37 wrote: »

Is Alex not entitled to his opinion the same as all the new age PC people who think being gay is ok? If he's not that Facism ladies and gents.

He's entitled to his opinion, and we're entitled to lambast him for it.

golfball37 wrote: »

Its not normal in any way shape or form in my opinion. Society would cease if were all "normal" if that were the case.

I have nothing against HS's at all and they should be treated as normal people with the right not to be abused, what they practice however is far from normal imo.

It's natural, therefore it's normal.

Mars Bar

Lads, this isn't really the place to discuss if homosexuality is normal or not. Homosexuality in football is the topic.

Andersonisgod

weldoninhio wrote: »

I think your fishing for a controversial answer. If you can't see where he is coming from your blind. For example, look at Vidic on the pitch, he looks like a scary mofo, a beast. Now off the pitch he could be the kindest, most softly spoken, gentle giant ever, but your impression of him would be based on what you have seen on the pitch.

I can assure you, I wasn't. I simply found Tue insinuation that you can "spot a gay" based on mannerisms (or the eyes apparently) to be absolutely ridiculous.

The point of your post I find ridiculous but also rather insulting. What if, in a purely hypothetical scenario of course, Vidic was gay. Why would that alter his playing style? He'd still look the same, he'd still play the same way. The point behind you using Vidic as an example I can only assume is that a tough figure like Vidic simply can't be gay bit it's ok to assume someone who makes hand and body mannerisms is? Because that is some condescending profiling you are doing there.

Augmerson

Deleted User wrote: »

Lost a lot of respect for Robbie Fowler reading that.

Robbie Savage and Paul Ince don't come out of that well either.

Augmerson

Augmerson wrote: »

Robbie Savage and Paul Ince don't come out of that well either.

Indeed, but considering Fowler was "God" to me in Liverpool terms it really paints him as a total ****ing coward to be honest.

Augmerson

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed, but considering Fowler was "God" to me in Liverpool terms it really paints him as a total ****ing coward to be honest.

I read his autobiography, but in hindsight, I might consider it fiction now. I really loved him as a kid growing up. Mad. Bit of a bollox but brilliant goalscorer.

Knex*

LiamoSail wrote: »

It's very easy to say that, but you have to put his remarks in context. Ask the same question to your Granny or Grandfather, anyone of that generation raised in an era where the word of the church had an immense hold over the behaviour and attitude of a nation. The likelihood is that they'd give a similar answer to that Alex gave. Alex's views are born from a culture of heavy religious influence, and his intolerances a product of this.

I personally don't agree with the views, but it's easy to see where they stem from

Both sets of Grandparents that I have had a relation of some sort who was Gay, and not one of them were anything but supportive. And both sets are what I believe to be very, very Religious.

I can't fathom how anyone goes on about the Adam and Eve line, and I've heard it countless times before. My take on it, that even if you're Religious. if you believe in the whole Adam and Eve type stuff, you've a lot of issues anyway, and as such its then totally unsurprising to hear these ignorant views come from Alex.

Most Religious people I know, while some are more devout than others, will believe in Jesus, etc, but put Adam and Eve down as a parable of sorts, more so than a fact.

I know there are many, many people out there who do believe it all, Noah's arc etc, but I can't relate to it in anyway, or fathom how they close off their minds in that regard.

Such is life I suppose, and probably not the place to be discussing it, but if you hold ignorant and ridiculous views like Alex, you deserved to have them brought up and challenged.

Society needs to stop tip toeing around ignorant issues just because they stem from a Religious belief.

Neeson

Augmerson wrote: »

Robbie Savage... don't come out of that well either.

And he'd be the fella on football focus now preaching about what a great thing Hitzelberger has done!

weldoninhio

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I can assure you, I wasn't. I simply found Tue insinuation that you can "spot a gay" based on mannerisms (or the eyes apparently) to be absolutely ridiculous.

The point of your post I find ridiculous but also rather insulting. What if, in a purely hypothetical scenario of course, Vidic was gay. Why would that alter his playing style? He'd still look the same, he'd still play the same way. The point behind you using Vidic as an example I can only assume is that a tough figure like Vidic simply can't be gay bit it's ok to assume someone who makes hand and body mannerisms is? Because that is some condescending profiling you are doing there.

And again, looking for a reaction (that you are not going to get btw), I never once mentioned Vidic' sexuality, or that he couldn't be gay because he seems tough. I stated, that from looking at him on the pitch you would think that he seemed like an intimidating person (hint: intimidating people can be gay too), but that could be completely wrong when you met him in person. Without knowing someone you have an impression of them, but you could be completely wrong.

Andersonisgod

weldoninhio wrote: »

And again, looking for a reaction (that you are not going to get btw), I never once mentioned Vidic' sexuality, or that he couldn't be gay because he seems tough. I stated, that from looking at him on the pitch you would think that he seemed like an intimidating person (hint: intimidating people can be gay too), but that could be completely wrong when you met him in person. Without knowing someone you have an impression of them, but you could be completely wrong.

No I am addressing you seemingly making stereotypical assumptions of people. I don't even think you notice that you are doing it because you've done it twice now, so I'll ask again. Why would your impression of Vidic be that he isn't gay? (Again I stress Vidic is being used hypothetical here and this could apply to any hard man footballer or indeed non-footballer). If Vidic is a nice person off the pitch, which he may well be,vwhat has that got to do with his sexuality or anything I've talked about with Neeson?

The original issue with Neeson was based on his stereotyping and how it is wrong to do that. His response of, look at the eyes, was baffling. Simply put, you shouldn't assume a person's sexuality based on ridiculous and outdated stereotypes.

astonaidan

Lads there is no way you can tell if someone is gay by there eyes, I myself would dress better be more into fashion than a prop I played rugby with in school who was gay for example

weldoninhio

Andersonisgod wrote: »

No I am addressing you seemingly making stereotypical assumptions of people. I don't even think you notice that you are doing it because you've done it twice now, so I'll ask again. Why would your impression of Vidic be that he isn't gay? (Again I stress Vidic is being used hypothetical here and this could apply to any hard man footballer or indeed non-footballer). If Vidic is a nice person off the pitch, which he may well be,vwhat has that got to do with his sexuality or anything I've talked about with Neeson?

The original issue with Neeson was based on his stereotyping and how it is wrong to do that. His response of, look at the eyes, was baffling. Simply put, you shouldn't assume a person's sexuality based on ridiculous and outdated stereotypes.

I haven't made a stereotypical assumption once. You obviously have a hard time reading. I made no comment on Vidic' sexuality in my first post. I pointed out that he looks intimidating on the pitch, in my second post (after you brought sexuality into it) I pointed out that intimidating looking people (in this hypothetical case Vidic) could be gay.

I simply stated that without knowing people that we sometimes make assumptions based on what we see. In my example, i used the assumption that Vidic looked intimidating (Note: Nothing to do with his sexuality) but could be, and probably is, very nice off the pitch. Neeson assumed that a certain player could be gay, but he could be the furthest thing from it off the pitch.

Its not exactly rocket science. Outside of the football sphere, if you were meeting a friend and could take a shortcut down an alleyway with a gang of hoodies standing about and save 5 minutes or walk the long way round past a group of pensioners, some people would assume it is safer to walk the long way!!!

For clarity, I'm not sure if either the hoodies or the pensioners are gay!!!

LiamoSail

Knex. wrote: »

Both sets of Grandparents that I have had a relation of some sort who was Gay, and not one of them were anything but supportive. And both sets are what I believe to be very, very Religious.

I can't fathom how anyone goes on about the Adam and Eve line, and I've heard it countless times before. My take on it, that even if you're Religious. if you believe in the whole Adam and Eve type stuff, you've a lot of issues anyway, and as such its then totally unsurprising to hear these ignorant views come from Alex.

Most Religious people I know, while some are more devout than others, will believe in Jesus, etc, but put Adam and Eve down as a parable of sorts, more so than a fact.

I know there are many, many people out there who do believe it all, Noah's arc etc, but I can't relate to it in anyway, or fathom how they close off their minds in that regard.

Such is life I suppose, and probably not the place to be discussing it, but if you hold ignorant and ridiculous views like Alex, you deserved to have them brought up and challenged.

Society needs to stop tip toeing around ignorant issues just because they stem from a Religious belief.

I'd imagine your grandparents would be in the minority in that regard. The ireland of the 50's/60's was a place where even an unmarried mother would have brought shame on a family, such was the influence of the church.

I don't agree with Alex's views as I said, and agree that such expressions should be challenged. But hard core religious beliefs will remain common place among those raised with religion as a corner stone of life, particularly those raised in regions neglected of wealth & higher education

Andersonisgod

weldoninhio wrote: »

I haven't made a stereotypical assumption once. You obviously have a hard time reading. I made no comment on Vidic' sexuality in my first post. I pointed out that he looks intimidating on the pitch, in my second post (after you brought sexuality into it) I pointed out that intimidating looking people (in this hypothetical case Vidic) could be gay.

I simply stated that without knowing people that we sometimes make assumptions based on what we see. In my example, i used the assumption that Vidic looked intimidating (Note: Nothing to do with his sexuality) but could be, and probably is, very nice off the pitch. Neeson assumed that a certain player could be gay, but he could be the furthest thing from it off the pitch.

Its not exactly rocket science. Outside of the football sphere, if you were meeting a friend and could take a shortcut down an alleyway with a gang of hoodies standing about and save 5 minutes or walk the long way round past a group of pensioners, some people would assume it is safer to walk the long way!!!

For clarity, I'm not sure if either the hoodies or the pensioners are gay!!!

I'm sorry, I obviously took up your Vidic reference the wrong way. I assumed, given the thread we are discussing this in, given that Neeson's post was about making presumptions of a players sexuality based on mannerisms (and eyes, don't forget eyes) and my response was to challenge that rather insulting stereotyping of sexuality, I automatically assumed that your Vidic reference would have something to do with sexuality (you know, the common theme running throughout this thread and the very discussion you rather rudely butted in on) so my apologies, I thought you were making a rather insulting analogy rather than an entirely irrelevant point.

What has Vidic looking like a mean guy/being a good guy have to do with prejudging sexuality? How is that in any way a comment on either Neeson's bizarre way of spotting homosexuals or my response that his methods are both wrong and insulting. There's quite a huge difference between judging if a player is a nice guy and determining that a player is a homosexual.

You're last paragraph is interesting, not because of the tired metaphor but because the underlying implication of it seems to be that, like Neeson, you believe that there are stereotypical features of mannerisms that would indicate that a player is a homosexual, do you care to share what you would believe those to be? Since, afterall you have now established the stereotype that thugs wear hoodies, so what would these "some people" assume a homosexual player would wear/look like/behave?

LiamoSail

Andersonisgod wrote: »

You're last paragraph is interesting, not because of the tired metaphor but because the underlying implication of it seems to be that, like Neeson, you believe that there are stereotypical features of mannerisms that would indicate that a player is a homosexual, do you care to share what you would believe those to be? Since, afterall you have now established the stereotype that thugs wear hoodies, so what would these "some people" assume a homosexual player would wear/look like/behave?

It's not difficult to see the point being made. People make assumptions of others they don't know based on personality traits or mannerisms. Seeing someone act in a camp manner would lead to an assumption they're gay. It doesn't mean they are gay, nor does it mean all acting with those mannerisms are gay, or indeed all gay people act with those mannerisms. Its just an assumption made by many based on a stereotype

Andersonisgod

LiamoSail wrote: »

It's not difficult to see the point being made. People make assumptions of others they don't know based on personality traits or mannerisms. Seeing someone act in a camp manner would lead to an assumption they're gay. It doesn't mean they are gay, nor does it mean all acting with those mannerisms are gay, or indeed all gay people act with those mannerisms. Its just an assumption made by many based on a stereotype

Yes and my core point is that making assumptions on stereotypes such as hand and body gestures, hair style, eyes(!), fashion sense or reading The Guardian is wrong. That's why I called Neeson on it, no wider purpose, and I didn't think that core point was a very controversial one but evidently to some people it is.

Neeson

I only said what I said because I remember Max Clifford saying he was turning homosexuals into heterosexuals in the public eye. So you might see a match and think to yourself "Jaysus, I wonder is he one of the boys Max is protecting"? Now I don't look at matches just to see that. I just think it the odd time. But as I say it's not without its faults.

efb

golfball37 wrote: »

Is Alex not entitled to his opinion the same as all the new age PC people who think being gay is ok? If he's not that Facism ladies and gents.

No that's like saying I believe black people are inferior . It's descrimination.

And Adam and Eve was an allegory

LiamoSail

efb wrote: »

No that's like saying I believe black people are inferior . It's descrimination.

Yes it is discriminatory opinion, but that doesn't take away from his right to hold it

Zico

LOL DFX Respect to the guy for taking the step. It'll make it easier for others in time.

EuropeanSon

golfball37 wrote: »

Is Alex not entitled to his opinion the same as all the new age PC people who think being gay is ok? If he's not that Facism ladies and gents.

Someone needs to Google fascism. :rolleyes:

Wikipedia wrote:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism

dreamers75

repost for anyone who missed it

http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/graeme-le-saux-how-gay-slurs-almost-wrecked-my-career/

efb

LiamoSail wrote: »

Yes it is discriminatory opinion, but that doesn't take away from his right to hold it

People have a right to be racist?

LiamoSail

efb wrote: »

People have a right to be racist?

Yes they do. People have a right to their beliefs. It's not illegal.

Such is the nature of the discussion, I have to emphasise that I don't agree with that particular view, but I do however believe in one's right to hold it

Dempsey

LiamoSail wrote: »

Yes they do. People have a right to their beliefs. It's not illegal.

Such is the nature of the discussion, I have to emphasise that I don't agree with that particular view, but I do however believe in one's right to hold it

Thats not the case in places like the UK

jdooley28

Wow! On the Le Saux article, It's sad how it can start from something as simple as "oh you and Ken went camping together", it's like something that happens on the first day of school where a nickname or story sticks, really childish stuff. Very tough on Le Saux and Campbell who also got similar abuse.

I genuinely would be delighted if players start pulling out of the Qatar world cup because of the homophobic laws over there, just to highlight how backward places can be. By the time World Cup 2022(or even 2023 by what Iv'e heard) comes around hopefully the stigma of being a gay footballer will have been greatly reduced and any footballer is comfortable to not hide their sexuality if they wish. Fair play to Thomas, I take the point that it shouldn't even be newsworthy, but it is as he's the first Premiership plyer, so well done to him.

CSF

golfball37 wrote: »

Is Alex not entitled to his opinion the same as all the new age PC people who think being gay is ok? If he's not that Facism ladies and gents.

Jesus.

cathalio11

If Alex believes that about gay people, I have no problems.

Let's remember that almost everyone believed this in previous centuries because we were raised to think that way.

You can't just be naive enough to believe that it goes straight from everyone being homophobic to everyone accepting it. It is a process that takes its time and I have no doubt that that Alex's children/grandchildren will be completely accepting of gay people in years to come.

When slavery was abolished in America, there were many people in the following years who were still racist but people didn't mind too much. Now racism is completely outlawed. So will discrimination against gay people in the future.

However, if Alex abuses gay people because of their sexual orientation, that is where it gets troublesome; but he has never been seen to do that. He went on to a French television show and voiced his concerns against divorce, abortion and homosexuality. Quite extreme, but he is fighting a lost battle.

Knex*

cathalio11 wrote: »

If Alex believes that about gay people, I have no problems.

Let's remember that almost everyone believed this in previous centuries because we were raised to think that way.

You can't just be naive enough to believe that it goes straight from everyone being homophobic to everyone accepting it. It is a process that takes its time and I have no doubt that that Alex's children/grandchildren will be completely accepting of gay people in years to come.

When slavery was abolished in America, there were many people in the following years who were still racist but people didn't mind too much. Now racism is completely outlawed. So will discrimination against gay people in the future.

However, if Alex abuses gay people because of their sexual orientation, that is where it gets troublesome; but he has never been seen to do that. He went on to a French television show and voiced his concerns against divorce, abortion and homosexuality. Quite extreme, but he is fighting a lost battle.

The start of the process is actually standing up and saying, "No, we as a society have an issue with your outdated, backward, and ignorant views."

By doing nothing, and simply thinking, its fine - he was raised that way - is to only prolong the cycle.

The next time you read about a suicide bomber attack, are you going to think, I've no problem with that. Lets all remember that's the way many people are raised over there.

It just doesn't sit right.

cathalio11

Well, that's fair enough.

But Alex was raised to think that way, not raised to kill people. I don't think you're comparing like for like there.

But I'm not saying you're wrong; I accept what you're saying.

JPA

LiamoSail wrote: »

Yes they do. People have a right to their beliefs. It's not illegal.

Such is the nature of the discussion, I have to emphasise that I don't agree with that particular view, but I do however believe in one's right to hold it

Holding a belief is one thing but expressing a homophobic or racist belief is illegal.

LiamoSail

JPA wrote: »

Holding a belief is one thing but expressing a homophobic or racist belief is illegal.

I don't think it is. Free speech dictates that to a degree, you have a right to express your opinions & beliefs. If such beliefs are expressed in a manner that is threatening or abusive, then obviously its illegal, similarly if those beliefs lead one to discriminate in the workplace, obviously that too is illegal. But expressing beliefs that are racist isn't necessarily illegal.

Alex's beliefs are religiously founded homophobia. To make such views illegal would surely be a form of discrimination against his religion.

efb

Free speech is not a right.

LiamoSail

efb wrote: »

Free speech is not a right.

Any reference to free speech was qualified with the phrase 'to a degree'.

Lightbulb Sun

Anyone see his interview on Football Focus earlier?

They had Robbie Savage and Robbie Fowler on the panel and it was good to see they were apologetic about somethings they said in the past to Graeme le Saux.

Dempsey

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Anyone see his interview on Football Focus earlier?

They had Robbie Savage and Robbie Fowler on the panel and it was good to see they were apologetic about somethings they said in the past to Graeme le Saux.

Good to hear, but I wonder if Le Saux would accept their apologies now

CSF

LiamoSail wrote: »

Any reference to free speech was qualified with the phrase 'to a degree'.

But it isn't a right to a degree, it isn't a right at all. Expressing bigoted beliefs is considered incitement of hatred, not an entitlement to an opinion. Rightly so too.

SantryRed

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Anyone see his interview on Football Focus earlier?

They had Robbie Savage and Robbie Fowler on the panel and it was good to see they were apologetic about somethings they said in the past to Graeme le Saux.

They haven't really got any other option than to apologise. What else could they say? Would question if it is even legitimate to be honest.

cathalio11

JPA wrote: »

Holding a belief is one thing but expressing a homophobic or racist belief is illegal.

I think that is true but I'm open to be proven wrong.

Committing a homophobic aggravated crime leads to a longer sentence but I didn't know that expressing a homophobic belief was illegal.

So to repeat, you can't be arrested for having a problem with gay people and being open about it, but you can be for committing a crime due to your problem with gay people.

LiamoSail

CSF wrote: »

But it isn't a right to a degree, it isn't a right at all. Expressing bigoted beliefs is considered incitement of hatred, not an entitlement to an opinion. Rightly so too.

Inciting hatred is a crime, but expressing a belief that is bigoted is not necessarily inciting hatred. I'm not well versed in law by any means, so I'm certainly open to correction on that.

Relating that to Alex's case, his beliefs mirror those of many Christians in this country. If a priest expresses these particular beliefs in a sermon, I don't believe he is inciting hatred, and as with his congregation, is fully entitled to these views IMO. Would censoring or outlawing their views not then be a form of religious discrimination?

Again, I'm not supporting their views in anyway, I do however support their right to express them.

Neil3030

LiamoSail wrote: »

Alex's beliefs are religiously founded homophobia. To make such views illegal would surely be a form of discrimination against his religion.

"If you want someone good to do or say something wicked, you need religion" - Hitchens

This religious standpoint has largely contributed to the persecution and hatred towards gay people, which still frequently leads to innocent people being killed, imprisoned or tortured in various parts of the world.

Pulling the reverse discrimination card in the manner in which you do above, assumes religious people are persecuted to the same degree by those tolerant of homsexuality. This is nonsense, to put it politely.

LiamoSail

Neil3030 wrote: »

"If you want someone good to do or say something wicked, you need religion" - Hitchens

This religious standpoint has largely contributed to the persecution and hatred towards gay people, which still frequently leads to innocent people being killed, imprisoned or tortured in various parts of the world.

Pulling the reverse discrimination card in the manner in which you do above, assumes religious people are persecuted to the same degree by those tolerant of homsexuality. This is nonsense, to put it politely.

I'm not pulling any discrimination card. The discussion centred on the law in this country regarding the expression of homophobic or discriminatory views. I raised a point that legally, the censoring of a point of view stemming from a religious belief could in itself be seen as discrimination. I raised not to 'pull any discrimination card' as you suggest, but to support my point that expressing such a view isn't illegal.

I entirely agree with your points on the result of religiously provoked hatred, but that's not what is being disputed

niallo27

This is all getting very deep. At the end of the some bloke says he was gay. We never see or hear from him again and we all move on. Until a playing premiership player comes out it's not news.

Lightbulb Sun

Dempsey wrote: »

Good to hear, but I wonder if Le Saux would accept their apologies now

SantryRed wrote: »

They haven't really got any other option than to apologise. What else could they say? Would question if it is even legitimate to be honest.

If I remember rightly, Fowler said he apologized personally to le Saux.

cathalio11

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

If I remember rightly, Fowler said he apologized personally to le Saux.

You remembered correctly, it is true.

COYVB

CSF wrote: »

But it isn't a right to a degree, it isn't a right at all. Expressing bigoted beliefs is considered incitement of hatred, not an entitlement to an opinion. Rightly so too.

You can express opinion without inciting hatred. If I said I believed homosexuality to be wrong (which I don't) there's nothing wrong with that. If walk around with signs that say "burn in hell fags" I'm inciting hatred. There's a definite difference both legally and in reality.

Everyone is entitled to any opinion on anything, because opinions are personally held things. Once it doesn't go beyond that it's perfectly fine legally to believe that gays aren't the devil, black's are for the white man to subjegate and the Irish are good for nothing drunks

dreamers75

Fowlers and Savages retort to Le Saux

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25696033

Fowler

"I am genuinely sorry," said Fowler. "It was used as a wind-up but looking back I shouldn't have done it. Looking back, it is embarrassing."

Savage

"His book was his version of events, and I genuinely can't remember the incident," said the former Crewe, Leicester, Birmingham, Blackburn and Derby midfielder.
"But what I will say is that they weren't my views then, more importantly, they are certainly not my views now."

Dont know what Savage said originally,.