Suzeonline <" 'Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men.'

Runner <"Tell that to the homosexual clergy who assaulted young boys."

As usual Runner, you are confusing the terms homosexual and paedophile.
I don't know how many times the differences has been spelled out to you on these pages... but obviously you aren't understanding us?

Proxy thinks that 'normal' men (like you I suppose?) wouldn't be envious of the homosexual sexlife or lifestyle.
I agree with that.
But I also think most 'normal' men would not feel threatened about anyone different from themselves if they felt comfortable in their own skin.

Homophobes must have low self-esteem.
Real men are understanding and tolerant people.

>> [Deleted for abuse]

Ironic that petty insults directed at one or two people get removed from OLO, but the filthiest calumnies against whole classes of people remain.

Just sayin'

woulfe,
<<filthiest calumnies against whole classes of people>>
Which "filthy falsifications or misrepresentations" would you be referring to?
Who is falsifying what?

I prefer to quote from those who can speak from direct experience:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

suzeonline,
<<As usual Runner, you are confusing the terms homosexual and paedophile.>>
You're the confused one.
To you, a man who engages in homosex with an 18 yo is a homosexual but a man who engages in homosex with a 17.99 yo (fill in appropriate age of consent less one day here) is a heterosexual paedophile by definition.
This is very convenient but it is dishonest and misleading,
which is no doubt the intent of those promulgating this view.

Proxy, are you suggesting that the clergy paedophiles who molested children in their care were actually homosexuals?
What about the girls who were molested by male clergy?

All those children were school age Proxy- hardly the age of consent.
If you are an adult who sexually abuses children of either gender under the age of 16, then you are a paedophile, no matter what sexual orientation or religion you were born with.

It is the law in this country that says an adult can't legally have sex with anyone under the age of sixteen. If they do, they are charged as child sex offenders or paedophiles.
What part of that law don't you understand Proxy?

Houellebecq:"What if a footballer just lives his life in an openly gay way, introducing his boyfriend and showing normal affection in public"

Then I daresay he'd find he was simply not welcome in the showers. As "Deccles" said in response to the Dmetri Kakmi piece that Morgan liked so much: "As a gay player who was in the closet and then out. All Akermanis is saying is the way it is".

Football culture is not gay culture. Why must football culture be forced to adopt the mores of gay culture? Is gay culture forced to adopt the mores of traditional football culture? Should it be?

As I said though, I'm more interested in the way in which Akermanis was attacked through the media for simply expressing a pretty personal view.

Are gay people so insecure in their sexuality that a simple statement "I would feel uncomfortable knowing that the bloke standing naked next to me in the shower is gay" deserves such a bitter and sustained response? As I said, lots of gay people have been prepared to say "this situation makes me uncomfortable, so you must change" and if anyone was to respond in the same way that Akermanis was treated they may find themselves facing charges.

Pericles:"I thought that it was about "

I'm sure you think a lot of things, but that doesn't make them correct.

Pericles:"No-one is suggesting that the presence of someone of the opposite sex in your changeroom is acceptable behaviour."

And why not? Because it would make the other occupants "uncomfortable".

Yet they are suggesting that the presence of someone known to be of opposite sexual orientation is acceptable and should be forced upon people if they object. In fact, they're suggesting that merely saying "I feel uncomfortable" is sufficient justification for public abuse "maybe his "maleness" is a bit small (tee hee)". The two situations are directly analogous and your response is a double standard.

[cont]

Pericles:"What he is trying to do, though, is to influence other people's choice - i.e. the choice of someone to openly declare their sexual orientation. "

Not at all. He's simply saying "we don't do that here". Many groups do that: for example, my local shopping centre has many signs up prohibiting the riding of skateboards, etc on their premises. Are they trying to "influence other people's choice" or are they simply saying "do it somewhere else"? Would it be acceptable for "skateboard activiats" to go on radio and personally vilify the people running such centres?

Pericles:"Could you perhaps define a little more clearly how you see this "oppression" manifesting itself in this situation?"

I've already done so. Perhaps a short course in reading for comprehension would sit well with that other one.

Severin:"When I was at uni we had mixed sex toilets"

Ditto, but we also had segregated ones for those who felt "uncomfortable" using the unisex ones.

I've still yet to see a single logical argument to justify the storm of vilification that the gay community and the rather sad football-haters have heaped on Akermanis.

The private cubicles idea is flawed, since a large part of being in a foorball team is that you have complete trust your teammates. You don't need to worry about putting yourself in a vulnerable position because they will watch your back, so to speak. Private cubicles undermine that to a degree.

Perhaps if there are so many gay men wanting to play football they should start their own clubs? I'm sure the AFL, NRL amd ARU would be pleased to add more potential players to their roster and expand their competitions. The showering protocols would be up to the clubs and their players...