Pericles:"Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?"

Here's some I prepared earlier, so to speak:
" Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week in wake of his controversial column in the Herald Sun and faces another hostile meeting tomorrow after admitting he had written it entirely himself.

The club had initially backed suggestions the newspaper had added words to the column but was left embarrassed when Akermanis conceded it had all been his doing.

The club has not ruled out imposing a fine, suspension or even termination of his contract."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/end-may-be-nigh-for-aka-20100529-wmju.html

Now, let's examine your objection to his comments. Your view is that he deserves all he gets because he mau have influenced somebody else's choice. Are we then to assume that you are also opposed to any other comments or behaviours that may impinge on someone else's choice of behaviour?

Foxy:"Homosexuals are drawn together not only
by a shared sexual orientation but also
by a common social experience"

And as you correctly point out, may of them find that being among like-minded people, whatever the common cause may be, is more important than making an issue of their sexuality. The report that woulfe helpfully provided showed that very many gay sportspeople are not out and I suspect that very many of them have no intention of ever doing so. That is their choice and should also be respected. It seems to me that this whole problem has been created by and for political operatives, not footballers; gay or straight.

Just as I suspected, Antiseptic.

Ya got nuthin'.

>>"Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week..."

Ooooh. A confrontation. Hardly "hysterical homophilia", though, is it?

C'mon, admit it. You just liked the sound of the words, didn't you?

But much more to the point:

>>Your view is that he deserves all he gets because he mau have influenced somebody else's choice. Are we then to assume that you are also opposed to any other comments or behaviours that may impinge on someone else's choice of behaviour?<<

That is a pathetically simplistic parallel, and you know it.

The "influencing of somebody else's choice" here, is in fact the creation of a hostile environment that is deliberately and maliciously designed to limit a colleague's freedom of expression.

It is effectively a threat.

And yes, I am opposed to threats of that nature. In this particular case, it threatens someone's livelihood.

Or do you see it more as a friendly finger-wagging admonishment?

Pericles:"Hardly "hysterical homophilia","

To be threatened with the sack for expressing your own discomfort? Interesting...

Now, let's have a look at what makes you uncomfortable. You say:"The "influencing of somebody else's choice" here, is in fact the creation of a hostile environment that is deliberately and maliciously designed to limit a colleague's freedom of expression.

It is effectively a threat."

So, by expressing his own sense of discomfort, he ls expressing a threat, so the club is acting reasonably in threatening him with the sack?

Curiouser and curiouser.

You'll have to help me here. He must limit his freedom of expression, whiuch is merely an expression of his own feelings so that someone else may feel freer in expressing theirs? Is that it in a nutshell?

Pericles:"In this particular case, it threatens someone's livelihood."

Yes, it does: Akermanis's, apparently.

Dear Proxy,

It is true, that male homosexuals are more
promiscuous as a group, than heterosexuals,
according to studies done. This is not
surprising. Men in general are expected to
be more promiscuous than women. We would
therefore expect to find, and do find, that
sexual relationships involving only men are
more promiscuous than those involving
men and women, while those involving only women
are the least promiscuous of all. In the first
decade or so of gay liberation, in fact, some
gay men seemed to initiate their own sexual
revolution, reacting to their new freedom by
almost celebrating promiscuity.

The appearance of AIDS has abruptly chastened that
attitude, and encouraged many gay men to revert to
more traditional practices of dating and settling
down with a single parter. The Gay community's
collective response to AIDS - especially through
the support services it has proved to gays,
drug addicts, children, and others stricken with
the disease - has cemented its bonds in a way that
promiscuous sex never could.

I'm just wondering what percentage of you have actually read Akermanis's column. Couldn't find a link to it anywhere in this thread, so here it is http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gay-still-taboo-in-afl/story-e6frf9nx-1111117242829.

What he said, and what he is said to have said, both here and in the other media reports that have been linked to, appear to be two different things.

Having read the piece I'm not even sure what he is saying exactly, it's a bit impenetrable, but you couldn't describe it as homophobic. He expresses admiration for a couple of gay footballers, for example.

Graham, that's a very old story you linked to. The current issue is to do with this piece: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/stay-in-the-closet-jason-akermanis-tells-homosexuals/story-e6frf9ix-1225868871934.