Thetownend.com

docking points

What a remarkable morning’s posting, and funny with it. But here’s the thing. I’m a gay West Ham boxholder (see, we’re everywhere, but mainly near a bar) and to my similarly hard-drinking footie mates that’s about as interesting as whether I’m left or right-handed. But isn’t all of this about context? My black (straight) mate is forever keen to reinforce the stereotype about the size of what’s in his underwear, a Jewish acquaintance is a Spurs supporter and loaded (and gets ribbed for it), I’m always complaining that West Ham players are universally ugly (though things are improving a bit of late). They are only words, it’s malice or intent that matters. By all accounts Carol Thatcher meant nothing by what she said (anyone who has ever seen or heard her would be aware she’s hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer). So consider this: it’s the last ten minutes v Hull, everyone’s up for a corner and in goes Cole, Boa Morte, Ilunga and Faubert, a bit of melee and the ball goes out of play. Bloody hell, I said, no idea what happened there it was just a forest of black, shaven heads. I know said my mate, it’s like looking down on a box of matches from here. Now I think that’s funny, and NOT racist. But dissect it on Radio 4 for a couple of hours and see where it ends up. Bored already.

Has anyone ever heard any homophobic chants at a game?

Never been to a Brighton game then?

And in my opinion it's no different from being called Wurzels or inbreds by opposing fans.

Here's a sample:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/02/misunderstood-funny-or-racist.html

Personally, I'd say "a forest of black, shaven heads" and "it’s like looking down on a box of matches from here" are bordering on racist. Would anyone say something similar if the players were white? Maybe, "its like looking down on a box of cotton wool buds"? I don't think so. Except maybe in Africa.

85% of the people who answered the STONEWALL survey agreed with the punishment of those Spurs fans.

People just want to take football and change it for their own agenda. Leave football alone!

Who cares what a bunch of faggots think?

There are no Muslim or Catholic gays. Atheists can be gays. Not sure about Buddhists.

All Catholic priests are into buggery. Its a well known fact.

Damn, I was posting one thing, changed my mind, fucked up the quotes and now look at my post.  I think I may be gay.

Do you believe in hell?

Fair enough, twas a poor comparison.  I just think people need to be a bit more open minded.  I assume I'll get called gay for saying this.

I tend to prefer the "each to their own" adage myself.  The right minded men argument is a bit weak.  To put it crudely, plenty of straight men are bad people.  Plenty of gay men are good people.  To make an incredibly spurious comparison, who would you rather have met, Oscar Wilde or Stalin?  Sounds silly, but you cannot seriously argue straight = good, gay = bad.

You've made a great point - it is about individuals, and individuals are free to be gay, straight, bisexual or whatever they want to be.  If you are an atheist, surely you can't believe a decision has been made for you by God, as you don't believe there is a god.

And no.  I have no information about gay Buddhists.  I bet there are some though.

I may be wrong here but I'd have thuoght that something shoved up my jacksy would bloody hurt. It was designed more for outward movement than inward movement.

You've made a great point - it is about individuals, and individuals are free to be gay, straight, bisexual or whatever they want to be.  If you are an atheist, surely you can't believe a decision has been made for you by God, as you don't believe there is a god.

And no.  I have no information about gay Buddhists.  I bet there are some though.

Terms such as gay, homosexual and queer are used to describe people and not the activities they indulge in. It is interesting that partaking in a particular sexual practice can so completely define a person.

The term gay and even homosexual are relatively recent. Prior to that men who indulged in buggery were just regarded as extremely licentious i.e they would screw anything if they had the opportunity.

So it shouldn't be as you say choosing to be gay just choosing to practice, when you have the opportunity, a particular form of sexual deviance/perversion. As long as it is done in private, between consenting adults, this is no big deal.

I would be a lot more comfortable about them if they would just keep their activities to themselves and please leave God out of this.

 Wrong Flash. By taking a particular stance then it is fair to assume that one indulges. If you are a pilot, then you must have flown a plane ! The paramaters are quite clearly set : licentiousness doesn't exist as it used to. As for God, are you a Roman Catholic priest by any chance ?

I need to look up about gay Budhists.

I would be a lot more comfortable about them if they would just keep their activities to themselves and please leave God out of this.