Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay

[Møllemanden]

Contact with different people in a noncompetitive situation, is the best way to reduce prejudice.

I think the only way to eliminated prejudice (by "fans") is to ban the idiots forever. If they're aware of the consequences, then they have a simple choice. Shut up or be gone. It's hard to change how homophobes, racists etc. perceive others if they're already damaged.

Nature versus nurture.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

I think your missing his point.

If your allowed to say religion is a fairytale or cancer, you should be allowed to say Patrick Bamford looks like a rent boy.

Both statements are either acceptable or not acceptable. You can’t separate the sentiment.

On a basic level they might be the same. One is critisising an institution and a set of beliefs and the other is degrading someone's appearance, though. You can say both and I would defend being able to say both but you'll have a much harder time defending the latter.

 

[Beaucoup]

It's ridiculous, though.

Sure every domination is the same in sense that have essentially the same beliefs. However, in terms of what is right and wrong, what's allowed and isn't allowed, they're all quite different. Different morals perhaps. I grew up with the Church of England, who were very accepting of everyone from all walks of life, demographics and didn't harbour any judgement. Unfortunately not every church is like that.

That said, I'm not a Christian. Atleast I don't consider myself one anymore. I don't necessarily believe in religion, I certainly don't believe in a book written by men 3000 years ago.

However, you as a human have the right to believe in what you want. By all means it's up for debate how a accurate and truthful it is, but to call it fairytale is downright offensive in my opinion. As I said, it's not big it's not clever, you're just being a bit of a dick.

Stop being sexist, it's offensive.

 

[Jippy]

. A slow start might be introducing a LGBT form of entertainment at half time. What about an openly gay entertainer doing a turn at half time? We have to start somewhere.

It's half-time, so let's wheel out the gays! Not sure how this normalise homosexuality to a football crowd, especially when half of the examples you put forward are/were flamboyant performers.

we need to think outside the box. Bringing LGBT attractions into football stadiums is not a stupid idea. Elton John, Freddie Mercury, Sam Smith, Rufus Wainright etc etc. These people are not circus acts or ridiculous.

I can't imagine Elton John playing live at half-time between Walsall and Southend on a blustery Tuesday evening in February. Plus you'd need hundreds of LGBT performers who are happy to go along with this.

You really need to question why you are so against my suggestion. Do you have anything against straight entertainers performing in football stadium? We have black players promoting Kick it out for racism so why not have high profile gays doing the same for the LGBT community?

It's a bit of a jump to suggest not liking your idea means you are automatically a massive homophobe.

 

[Ravelation]

Maybe the problem lies earlier on in the chain of assumption; as a heterosexual man I don't 'come out' as heterosexual because it's assumed by the masses, maybe we as people should not assume a persons sexual preferences, and there would be no need for a homosexual male to 'come out.'

As long as people feel the need to come out, an issue will still exist as they will be doing it because of oppression and assumption. What needs to change is the status quo.

 

[Lynty]

Maybe the problem lies earlier on in the chain of assumption; as a heterosexual man I don't 'come out' as heterosexual because it's assumed by the masses, maybe we as people should not assume a persons sexual preferences, and there would be no need for a homosexual male to 'come out.'

As long as people feel the need to come out, an issue will still exist as they will be doing it because of oppression and assumption. What needs to change is the status quo.

There are definitely men who I assume are gay.

 

[Grylte]

There are definitely men who I assume are gay.

By assume, do you mean hope?

Ass u me.

 

[Welby5]

What bollocks. Calling something that one believes in fairytale, is quite obviously offensive.

My boss is a Methodist, and i'm pleased to say he's as open minded and tolerant towards the opinions of all the non believers who work for him, as we are towards him and his religious belief. Sadly, part of the problem with religion today is too many lack that open mindedness, tolerance and too many looking to be offended.

 

[SiRed]

I was labelled as homophobic for simply saying i do not enjoy watching gay love scenes in movies or on tv. Never said and wouldn't say there shouldn't be gay characters and love scenes. Not enough to have said i fully support equality etc etc etc. No, in order to not be homophobic i now have to want to see gay sex and enjoy wtching it.

Welcome to the thread - I learnt very early on in the thread that despite not being a homophobe - it is very easy to be labelled as one.

 

[MackRobinson]

I didn't say that. I said punishments on their own.

How can punitive punishments for LGBT discrimination be effective at football matches when the offence is generally not committed. I want to see a world where professional footballers can come out without being abused. They will not come out in the current atmosphere and we need to change that. Punitive punishments alone will not encourage people to come out so we need to think outside the box. Bringing LGBT attractions into football stadiums is not a stupid idea. Elton John, Freddie Mercury, Sam Smith, Rufus Wainright etc etc. These people are not circus acts or ridiculous.

While St Petersburg is a wonderful city it is presided over by perhaps one of the most anti-LGBT governments of them all. We should consider banning them or boycotting their matches. I agree the sporting authorities have let their like get away with bad behaviour for too long.

You really need to question why you are so against my suggestion. Do you have anything against straight entertainers performing in football stadium? We have black players promoting Kick it out for racism so why not have high profile gays doing the same for the LGBT community?

Nice attempt at a red herring to insinuate I have something against gay performers performing at halftime shows. What I said that is that should never be a requirement (ie. it shouldn't be forced). Same way I would feel about a mandate for a black performer. Lady Gaga (openly bisexual) performed at a Super Bowl because she was one of the hottest artist at the time. A mandate would have taken away from her performance (which she used as a platform to discuss LGBT rights) and would have accomplished feck all.

Also your attempt to equate Kick it out with LGBTs performing at a halftime show is absolutely absurd.

 

[SteveJ]

Sadly, part of the problem with religion today is too many lack that open mindedness, tolerance and too many looking to be offended.

In all fairness, mate, those attitudes are hardly exclusive to religion.

 

[blue blue]

It's half-time, so let's wheel out the gays! Not sure how this normalise homosexuality to a football crowd, especially when half of the examples you put forward are/were flamboyant performers.


I can't imagine Elton John playing live at half-time between Walsall and Southend on a blustery Tuesday evening in February. Plus you'd need hundreds of LGBT performers who are happy to go along with this.


It's a bit of a jump to suggest not liking your idea means you are automatically a massive homophobe.

You don't seem to be taking this seriously. There are obviously hundreds of professional gay footballers who feel they can't come out because of an anti gay attitude within stadiums. I am trying to come up with suggestions to change this and people are making jokes.

Says it all really.

PS. I didn't say anybody was a massive homophobe.

 

[SteveJ]

It's bloody sad that entertaining bigoted straight, white people is a route to changing their tiny minds. That, and conforming to their lifestyles.

 

[blue blue]

Nice attempt at a red herring to insinuate I have something against gay performers performing at halftime shows. What I said that is that should never be a requirement (ie. it shouldn't be forced). Same way I would feel about a mandate for a black performer. Lady Gaga (openly bisexual) performed at a Super Bowl because she was one of the hottest artist at the time. A mandate would have taken away from her performance (which she used as a platform to discuss LGBT rights) and would have accomplished feck all.

Also your attempt to equate Kick it out with LGBTs performing at a halftime show is absolutely absurd.

I'm not suggesting anything should be forced, I do question why you are so against my suggestion when you seem to have seen the sense in What Lady Gaga did.

A mandate? What are you talking about? Do you think I am suggesting that gay people be forced to appear. Under what circumstances could Lady Gaga be forced to perform? I just thought a LGBT presence in a stadium one day might just make it easier for a gay footballer to come out. That's all. If you can see a flaw in how that might not help please elucidate but you just say "A mandate would have taken away from her performance". What does that even mean? I wasn't going to round up a load of screaming gays and force them to perform juggling acts. I thought I might put an idea out there but have had a completely negative response. Not just from you.

Perhaps we just put up a few rainbow balloons and posters around the pitch one day eh? That'll sort it.

 

[blue blue]

It's bloody sad that entertaining bigoted straight, white people is a route to changing their tiny minds. That, and conforming to their lifestyles.

It might be sad but if it raises awareness it's not such a bad thing.

 

[SteveJ]

It might be sad but if it raises awareness it's not such a bad thing.

Yeah, true enough.

 

[Dan-Utd]

I think the Twitter account of the "gay footballer" was a fake, that account created a drama over it and for someone who was worried about coming out - that account was only ever going to get attention, some good, some bad.

If a footballer just came out and said, i'm gay, i think this would quickly pass, there would be a few fans shouting abuse - answer: lifetime bans, people who can't attend a football match without spouting hatred don't deserve to go to games, being to thick to recognise the line between banter and hatred - is no excuse.

It is sad that there are people on both sides, who make being gay or being black appear to be "us v them" when it is not, people at Kick It Out seem to create problems like when a black manager gets sacked implying it's something to do with that! never mind that white managers also get sacked regularly too,

There are a lot of decent football fans out there, many who if they heard the guy or woman next to them shouting racist or anti gay remarks - would be more than happy to point it out to stewards etc.

And my final point is...

People talk about this so called "big problem" that is being gay in football and how they won't come out because of the hatred they would get.

Well... how do they know? none of them have come out in English Football so there is no evidence to suggest that fans would abuse them - it's all "i think"

Justin Fashanu came out many years ago, in those days there was a lot of gay hatred and racism going around everywhere, not just in football but in every day life.... these days we have come a long way from that! if a gay footballer wants to come out - just do it, don't build up to it by putting a target on your head via social media, it doesn't open "debates" it just gives the trolls what they want, anything to bring someone down regardless of race or sexuality.

 

[Lynty]

Half time performers would never work. It would become a circus like he said. These gay performers your thinking of don’t appeal to the demographic of most matchday fans. Shouting ‘get the gay prick off the field’ halfway through a Sam Smith performance wont provoke a defence from other fans because, quite frankly, most don’t like Sam Smith either.

It’ll take a well liked player to say he’s gay but also show he can be ‘one of the lads’ for it to be accepted and defended my fans. Patrice Evra’s persona for example

 

[Snow]

I agree and its a problem. Last week I suggested a charity LGBT football match be held at Wembley Stadium and wanted to get views on what people thought. I didn't get any response. I think this just about sums up how people view this issue in football. They ignore it hope it will go away. I can't see attitudes changing any time soon and maybe it's time to think of how this can be addressed. A slow start might be introducing a LGBT form of entertainment at half time. What about an openly gay entertainer doing a turn at half time? We have to start somewhere.

Football is so institutionalized so progress comes very slowly. The governing bodies are very slow to change any rules (look at VAR compared to other sports). You've got people staying in the game as part of the staff until retirement and with a low turnover of people doesn't come rapid social change like openness towards homosexuals. There was a player in the NFL who wasn't openly gay but was in the closet and he was abused by his coaches in training despite being on the same team. It only takes the one person to make your job miserable and in football there's somewhat of a hierarchy that you can't overcome so what this sport needs isn't just players to come out as gay but as massive player coming out as gay.

It's similar with mental problems. Research have shown that professional athletes suffer more from mental problems than the general population yet there's no talk about that. The reason is that if you open up you're not getting played and if you're not getting played then your career is heading towards being over.

 

[MackRobinson]

I'm not suggesting anything should be forced, I do question why you are so against my suggestion when you seem to have seen the sense in What Lady Gaga did.

A mandate? What are you talking about? Do you think I am suggesting that gay people be forced to appear. Under what circumstances could Lady Gaga be forced to perform? I just thought a LGBT presence in a stadium one day might just make it easier for a gay footballer to come out. That's all. If you can see a flaw in how that might not help please elucidate but you just say "A mandate would have taken away from her performance". What does that even mean? I wasn't going to round up a load of screaming gays and force them to perform juggling acts. I thought I might put an idea out there but have had a completely negative response. Not just from you.

Perhaps we just put up a few rainbow balloons and posters around the pitch one day eh? That'll sort it.

You are completely missing the point
a) I'm talking about a mandate/requirement that a LGBT person should perform at a given halftime show of some sporting event. Not forcing them to perform.
b) Lady Gaga being chosen had nothing to do with her sexuality. She was already wildly popular, which made her message seem more genuine.
c) I still don't see how a halftime show would get footballers to come out or punish bigots

 

[Nr.7]

You compared believing in religion to believing if a football player is good or not. If you're actually being serious use a better analogy and I'll discuss it with you.

You’re right. It was a silly comparison seeing as Phil Jones actually exists.

Seriously though, there’s nothing to discuss. You’ve lost my interest when failing to present an argument, but instead chose to insult me.

 

[matt10000]

If you can call religion a fairytale then you should be able to say you find homosexuality disgusting. In reality, you shouldn't say either. Both are purposely incendiary statements.

Spot on. The hypocracy in this thread is unbelievable. Homosexuals and Christians are both minority groups that are persecuted yet there are some on here who argue that we shouldn't offend one group and are happy to make sweeping judgements and offend the other group.

'The Bible is a fairytale' is incendiary and is intended to belittle those that believe in it whereas 'I don't believe in God or the Bible' is a fair opinion. I am not religious but I can't prove there is or isn't a god, or how much of the bible is true from a devine point of view (although historically some of it can be proved) any more than I can prove that we are/aren't living in a hologram or virtual reality world or whether we are all a figment of your imagination!

Religions, as with every other group in every other walk of life, have good and bad people and there are certainly some who use the bible as justification for being homophobic the same way others use it to justify war but at the end of the day there will always be a minority of bad people in every walk of life that will use whatever material happens to be available to justify their bad actions and manipulate others.

This thread is about decency and freedom of expression for all not being selective.

 

[Nick7]

Uh are Christians really a minority group?

 

[Pagh Wraith]

'The Bible is a fairytale' is incendiary

Christ! The bible deserves much stronger words than just fairytale.

And you are on pretty thin ice equating homosexuals and Christians with regards to their minority status.

 

[matt10000]

Christ! The bible deserves much stronger words than just fairytale.

And you are on pretty thin ice equating homosexuals and Christians with regards to their minority status.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

Not really, it is an indisputable fact that Christians (plus other religious groups) and homosexuals are minority groups that are persecuted in many countries of the world.

Are you saying that:

1. The level at which a group of people should be persecuted should be determined by their numbers
2. No one should be persecuted for their sexuality but it is ok to persecute them for their religious beliefs
3. No group of people should be persecuted regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality, religion or political beliefs
4. I don't know it's all very confusing

 

[DOTA]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

Not really, it is an indisputable fact that Christians (plus other religious groups) and homosexuals are minority groups that are persecuted in many countries of the world.

Are you saying that:

1. The level at which a group of people should be persecuted should be determined by their numbers
2. No one should be persecuted for their sexuality but it is ok to persecute them for their religious beliefs
3. No group of people should be persecuted regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality, religion or political beliefs
4. I don't know it's all very confusing

The persecution of Christians happening in countries that don't have major football leagues isn't really relevant here. Football is overwhelmingly Christian.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

No one here wants to persecute religious people for their beliefs. Criticising religion or religious organisations has nothing to do with persecuting the people who follow it. And calling the Bible (or the Koran or other holy books) fairytales (which again is the one of the mildest words to describe it I can think of) is not incendiary.

The other thing is that, and I guess I have to point that out, homosexuality is not a choice and you cannot just quit it like you can quit a church.

 

[Carolina Red]

There’s a difference in criticism of things people choose vs criticism of things people don’t choose, isn’t there?

 

[Welby5]

Well, that is actually offensive and is so ironic coming form a person who started this by saying you shouldn’t be allowed to offend.

You could have a.

The other thing is that, and I guess I have to point that out, homosexuality is not a choice and you cannot just quit it like you can quit a church.

And yet, in 2019 there are still religious fruitloops who think a person can be "cured" of homosexuality.

 

[MackRobinson]

No one here wants to persecute religious people for their beliefs. Criticising religion or religious organisations has nothing to do with persecuting the people who follow it. And calling the Bible (or the Koran or other holy books) fairytales (which again is the one of the mildest words to describe it I can think of) is not incendiary.

The other thing is that, and I guess I have to point that out, homosexuality is not a choice and you cannot just quit it like you can quit a church.

Yes it is incendiary. Just like for LGBTs, racial minorities, and women you don't get to pick what's offensive to them. You can disagree with religion with out being demeaning. A simple "I don't believe in (insert religion on your choice)" would suffice. If you honestly don't see how calling something a person bases their entire existence upon a "fairytale" then I'm not sure what to tell you

The last part is irrelevant and an extremely myopic point of view. I was born into a religious family and even though I'm now not religious, for many people I know religion has been instilled in them since birth. Sure LGBs don't choose their sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean someone who does choose a way of life a) has an easy time shedding that identity or b) deserves to have their way of life disrespected.

Religion has a bred a lot of terrible people with a lot of blood on their hands for sure, but that doesn't mean innocents like my family and good friends deserve to be mocked.

 

[matt10000]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

Not really, it is an indisputable fact that Christians (plus other religious groups) and homosexuals are minority groups that are persecuted in many countries of the world.

Are you saying that:

1. The level at which a group of people should be persecuted should be determined by their numbers
2. No one should be persecuted for their sexuality but it is ok to persecute them for their religious beliefs
3. No group of people should be persecuted regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality, religion or political beliefs
4. I don't know it's all very confusing

The other thing is that, and I guess I have to point that out, homosexuality is not a choice and you cannot just quit it like you can quit a church.

I understand now you have chosen answer 2.
Basically you believe that it is ok to persecute people for their politics or religion as this is a choice but it isn't ok to persecute people for their sexuality or ethnicity as this is not a choice.

My answer would have been 3 but you are entitled to your opinion.

The persecution of Christians happening in countries that don't have major football leagues isn't really relevant here. .

I didn't realise that you can be so selective when it comes to persecution of people for their sexuality or religion?

Does this mean that persuction of gays in China is irrelevant despite the fact that EPL players go there and may be gay AND/OR Christian (by the way they are not mutually exclusive)

https://www.newsweek.com/revealed-w...city-gay-people-probably-not-where-you-629597

Football is overwhelmingly Christian.

There are 1.379 billion people in China which is more than the entire population of Europe, USA and Russia combined and the main religion is Buddhism.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Yes it is incendiary. Just like for LGBTs, racial minorities, and women you don't get to pick what's offensive to them. You can disagree with religion with out being demeaning. A simple "I don't believe in (insert religion on your choice)" would suffice. If you honestly don't see how calling something a person bases their entire existence upon a "fairytale" then I'm not sure what to tell you

The last part is irrelevant and an extremely myopic point of view. I was born into a religious family and even though I'm now not religious, for many people I know religion has been instilled in them since birth. Sure LGBs don't choose their sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean someone who does choose a way of life a) has an easy time shedding that identity or b) deserves to have their way of life disrespected.

Religion has a bred a lot of terrible people with a lot of blood on their hands for sure, but that doesn't mean innocents like my family and good friends deserve to be mocked.

Not you or your family deserve to be mocked, but religion does. And no, just saying I don't believe in it is not enough. What kind of argument is that? Then you might as well argue just saying you are not homophobic is enough but don't criticise homophobes. I am not just not religious, I am anti religion. And I am allowed to defend that view. I have no control over what offends you and if it does, then you have to deal with it. We have to be allowed to criticise bad ideas. That does not mean I want to infringe on your right to follow any religion you want. I also "believe" in some ideas (though based on facts). I believe in free markets and the less government, the better. A lot of people don't share that belief (I would even guess a majority on this forum). Some might even call my belief a fairytale. I don't care, they are free to say that. If I'm offended by that, then that is my problem.

 

[Siorac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

Not really, it is an indisputable fact that Christians (plus other religious groups) and homosexuals are minority groups that are persecuted in many countries of the world.

Are you saying that:

1. The level at which a group of people should be persecuted should be determined by their numbers
2. No one should be persecuted for their sexuality but it is ok to persecute them for their religious beliefs
3. No group of people should be persecuted regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality, religion or political beliefs
4. I don't know it's all very confusing

Or 5. Calling something a fairy tale isn't "persecution" which makes your entire framing of the matter invalid. You might say it's needlessly antagonising but honestly, it's no different than gently mocking someone's political opinion.

You might have a point if, say, religious people weren't allowed to marry each other (and huge swathes of society still opposed their marriage even when it's legal). Or when, in a Western society, you are attacked and assaulted in public because of a cross you wear or something. Until then... it's not particularly relevant to the discussion.

(And in countries where Christians are genuinely persecuted, it is not done by people who call their religion a fairy tale. It is done by people who have their own fairy tales and believe that to be the only true and right one.)

 

[Danni Utd]

Hello, I'm gay. Well actually gender fluid too. And I've been a reasonably committed United follower since 1994/95 (got taken to a 0-0 draw with Leeds United at Old Trafford as a 6 year old and was completely hooked from that point on!).

I have to say, I think it's great that people are finally talking about this issue - I've become a lot more comfortable with myself over the years and to be honest am quite happy being openly myself when playing football or going to watch a match (I'm from very near Old Trafford in Manchester though I live in London now for work so get back up when I can). And I do mostly play football with 'straight' guys - not had any issues myself.

However, I have actually chatted with a gay player who plays for one of the top u23 sides and it's just so upsetting to hear him say the words "my life will be over if anyone finds out". I mean how can someone still feel like that in this day and age, basically because he's good at football. Because he believes his teammates will reject him, fans will harass him, and his football career will be over before it starts. And to be honest, I'll be surprised if he makes it when he is clearly so conflicted like this. Your head has to be completely focused on your career and you have to be happy and stable.

So, clearly something's gotta change, and so being open minded and accepting, fan by fan, is the first place to start.

 

[matt10000]

And in countries where Christians are genuinely persecuted.

So you think that religious persecution in this country is not genuine?!?!?!?

It is done by people who have their own fairy tales and believe that to be the only true and right one.

It is done by a minority of people who worship power and money and use a warped interpretation of the religion or ideology that happens to be convenient in order to justify their actions and manipulate others. Throughout history this has happened regardless of the religion/ideology and always will.

It is not the religion that makes them warped, it is them that warps the religion

 

[Siorac]

So you think that religious persecution in this country is not genuine?!?!?!?

If by "this country" you mean the UK then I don't know. Religious persecution of Christians would surprise me very much though, considering Christianity is the dominant religion of Europe. Around 72% of the EU's population consider themselves Christians. And let me reiterate, because it's very important, that someone calling religion "stupid" isn't persecution, no more than calling the Tories inhumane and out of touch is persecution of conservatives.

Now, Islamophobia or anti-Semitism... while these are problems, they often have little to do with actual religion and are actually racist positions a lot of the time - when hatred for these groups is religiously motivated then I'm afraid to say that it's mostly other religious people doing the hating.

 

[jem]

Hello, I'm gay. Well actually gender fluid too. And I've been a reasonably committed United follower since 1994/95 (got taken to a 0-0 draw with Leeds United at Old Trafford as a 6 year old and was completely hooked from that point on!).

I have to say, I think it's great that people are finally talking about this issue - I've become a lot more comfortable with myself over the years and to be honest am quite happy being openly myself when playing football or going to watch a match (I'm from very near Old Trafford in Manchester though I live in London now for work so get back up when I can). And I do mostly play football with 'straight' guys - not had any issues myself.

However, I have actually chatted with a gay player who plays for one of the top u23 sides and it's just so upsetting to hear him say the words "my life will be over if anyone finds out". I mean how can someone still feel like that in this day and age, basically because he's good at football. Because he believes his teammates will reject him, fans will harass him, and his football career will be over before it starts. And to be honest, I'll be surprised if he makes it when he is clearly so conflicted like this. Your head has to be completely focused on your career and you have to be happy and stable.

So, clearly something's gotta change, and so being open minded and accepting, fan by fan, is the first place to start.

Fantastic post! And beyond all else, it's admirable that you have maintained your commitment to United given the shenanigans of Woodward and co!

 

[Danni Utd]

Fantastic post! And beyond all else, it's admirable that you have maintained your commitment to United given the shenanigans of Woodward and co!

Thanks Jem! Yeah I have been lurking on Twitter all summer, reading so much rubbish about how we are finished as a club etc etc, but to be honest, I try really hard not to be sucked in to all the negativity and just try to enjoy United as much as I can... Which means being happy about us playing the youth and academy players, signing 2 fantastic defenders and a hungry young winger, and not carrying on our past mistakes of giving huge deals to footballing mercenaries who don't really want to be here... Yeah, we need some fresh input at the top of the club, and yeah the midfield and attack might look a little light (until the next window - but we will clearly be sorting that over the next 2 of those), but a few good early wins should help ease our minds!

 

[Tostao_80]

I think the Twitter account of the "gay footballer" was a fake, that account created a drama over it and for someone who was worried about coming out - that account was only ever going to get attention, some good, some bad.

If a footballer just came out and said, i'm gay, i think this would quickly pass, there would be a few fans shouting abuse - answer: lifetime bans, people who can't attend a football match without spouting hatred don't deserve to go to games, being to thick to recognise the line between banter and hatred - is no excuse.

It is sad that there are people on both sides, who make being gay or being black appear to be "us v them" when it is not, people at Kick It Out seem to create problems like when a black manager gets sacked implying it's something to do with that! never mind that white managers also get sacked regularly too,

There are a lot of decent football fans out there, many who if they heard the guy or woman next to them shouting racist or anti gay remarks - would be more than happy to point it out to stewards etc.

And my final point is...

People talk about this so called "big problem" that is being gay in football and how they won't come out because of the hatred they would get.

Well... how do they know? none of them have come out in English Football so there is no evidence to suggest that fans would abuse them - it's all "i think"

Justin Fashanu came out many years ago, in those days there was a lot of gay hatred and racism going around everywhere, not just in football but in every day life.... these days we have come a long way from that! if a gay footballer wants to come out - just do it, don't build up to it by putting a target on your head via social media, it doesn't open "debates" it just gives the trolls what they want, anything to bring someone down regardless of race or sexuality.

Atrocious post, and entirely misses the point on so many levels. This thread isnt about racism in football, so dont use it to attack Kick it Out and what they purportedly do.
And you find it surprising that people think that gay footballers would get abuse. Anyone with a modicum of sense would see that they would. There are homophobes in wider society. Why would there not be any on football grounds?
You seem to have an issue here.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

its fecking ridiculous that there are still enough bigots and morons in this day and age that people have to hide their sexuality. Straight/Gay/Anywhere else on the scale in between, what difference does it make? Judge a man by the strength of his character, not the colour of his skin, his faith, or who he bumps uglies with.