gAyFL Round

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes it does. Just like your homophobic attitudes make you a homophobe.
Just because you say you aren't a homophobe, doesn't make it so :)

No it doesn't. It means they define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They don't disagree with the concept. Why should that definition be changed?

Why not just call everybody straight and have no distinction between homo and hetro?

And by the way I am pro gay marriage, I just can't stand people taking the high ground in an arguement because they see themselves as more progressive. Consider both sides and also how non-gay people identify themselves.
 
I want a Scorpio round.

I'm a Scorpio, and proud of it, but it's not just about me, or others like me.

It is estimated that up to one twelfth of all AFL players are also Scorpios, but this has never been publicly acknowledged. Some of the greats of the game are included in our ranks.

It's time to recognise the contribution that Scorpios have made to the game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I want a Scorpio round.

I'm a Scorpio, and proud of it, but it's not just about me, or others like me.

It is estimated that up to one twelfth of all AFL players are also Scorpios, but this has never been publicly acknowledged. Some of the greats of the game are included in our ranks.

It's time to recognise the contribution that Scorpios have made to the game.

Nice to see the moderators of the forum contributing some really high-quality material. Leading by example.
 
I hope you are right. Given the "boys club" attitude you see in the AFL I am sceptical. The problem is there is no way to prove your assertion that all is well at AFL club level just as there is no way to prove it is a problem. We are all making guesses about it here coloured by our own opinions of gays in general.

I'd find it difficult to believe that the close teammates of a gay player didn't know - but that's just based on my interactions outside of the AFL fishbowl so I suppose it is possible.


But like I have said I don't see why the AFL should have to lead us in addressing community issues in the first place. They are a sporting franchise, not a think tank. But I do like that they are willing to participate in some discussions, but they should never be seen as the trend setters or leaders on any issue other than football.

So like I said earlier I'd prefer if the AFL didn't have any rounds dedicated to community issues. Dedicate them to Football. But they can still participate in community discussion and present positive role models for young people.

While I agree that the AFL doesn't need to tackle all / any community issues (whether by dedicating a round to it or otherwise) I do think this is one that should be addressed. If you believe reports that 5-10% of the community is gay then there are sound commercial reasons for making a stand on inclusiveness, let alone encouraging potential star players to stick with the game. After all the AFL is always looking to expand not only it's market but also talent pool.

It could be such an easy step if the AFL took it seriously. For instance, simply to say that homophobic language is not be tolerated at the footy i.e. the words ***, **** and homo could be treated with the same severity as ni**er* and coon (both on and off field). There are always new swear words to use. This would set a low key but positive signal that the AFL is making an effort without being too controversial, and other initiatives could follow as needed.


* this was the ONLY word the swear filter picked up. :thumbsdown:
 
I want a Scorpio round.

I'm a Scorpio, and proud of it, but it's not just about me, or others like me.

It is estimated that up to one twelfth of all AFL players are also Scorpios, but this has never been publicly acknowledged. Some of the greats of the game are included in our ranks.

It's time to recognise the contribution that Scorpios have made to the game.
seriously and you're a moderator on this forum? Standards have dropped somewhat since my days it seems.
 
Then why feel you have to keep it all private and hidden away if they are all so accepting?
What's your definition of private and hidden away?

If someone's team-mates, family and friends know, I'd suggest that's not hidden.

If you're talking to the general public, perhaps it's simply none of their business.

Perhaps they don't want to deal with the minority of peanuts in society that take it too far.
 
I want a Scorpio round.

I'm a Scorpio, and proud of it, but it's not just about me, or others like me.

It is estimated that up to one twelfth of all AFL players are also Scorpios, but this has never been publicly acknowledged. Some of the greats of the game are included in our ranks.

It's time to recognise the contribution that Scorpios have made to the game.

This really is the dumbest argument.

Do you feel you have to hide who you are because of your star sign? Have you ever been discriminated against in favour of Leos or Capricorns?

It's not about recognition, it's about acceptance.
 
In the days of every second player being a metro-sexual hipster with a dodgy haircut, ripped body and fashion label or restaurant playing in a watered down physical game as opposed to hardened, gut carrying and VB swilling players of yesteryear - I'd suggest the blokely, boys club stereotype at football clubs is long gone.
Yes and no. I think that most people would be pretty accepting of a declared gay man playing footy with them, which is a large and definite step forward from the attitudes of yesteryear that you mention. However, I think that the young man in question manages to put it well;

"The feeling is 100 times worse in the footy world. People just don’t realise how deep the abuse cuts -- and being called ****** and **** is a daily feature of most clubs. It’s a horrible reminder that you’re different. Disgusting and unwelcome."
https://indymedia.org.au/2012/09/10/homophobia-in-the-afl

I think that a lot of people also don't quite have a handle on the point of the proposed round - it's not a 'Gay Round' as such, but more so a 'Gay Pride' Round, just as a response to homophobia. It would be a far better idea, I think, than the highly patronising weekend that is Women's Round where we have to watch ads about thanking Mums for washing jumpers - as one woman put it, 'You want to do something for me, AFL? Fix the freaking MRP...'
 
While I agree that the AFL doesn't need to tackle all / any community issues (whether by dedicating a round to it or otherwise) I do think this is one that should be addressed. If you believe reports that 5-10% of the community is gay then there are sound commercial reasons for making a stand on inclusiveness, let alone encouraging potential star players to stick with the game. After all the AFL is always looking to expand not only it's market but also talent pool.

It could be such an easy step if the AFL took it seriously. For instance, simply to say that homophobic language is not be tolerated at the footy i.e. the words ***, **** and homo could be treated with the same severity as ni**er* and coon (both on and off field). There are always new swear words to use. This would set a low key but positive signal that the AFL is making an effort without being too controversial, and other initiatives could follow as needed.


* this was the ONLY word the swear filter picked up. :thumbsdown:

Like I said I'd be happy for the AFL to be involved in the discussion and certainly set policy on vilification of gay people in the game. But that doesn't mean they need to have a "gay pride round". They can have such a positive effect without that. But what bothers me is they seem to have decided to just stick their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.
 
Like I said I'd be happy for the AFL to be involved in the discussion and certainly set policy on vilification of gay people in the game. But that doesn't mean they need to have a "gay pride round". They can have such a positive effect without that. But what bothers me is they seem to have decided to just stick their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

Yes, yes and ..... yes.
 
What's your definition of private and hidden away?

If someone's team-mates, family and friends know, I'd suggest that's not hidden.

If you're talking to the general public, perhaps it's simply none of their business.

Perhaps they don't want to deal with the minority of peanuts in society that take it too far.

This is the point though, why should they not be able to attend functions with their partner like every other footballer just because of a few peanuts making everyone shit scared? Come out publicly and make it clear that men of all sexual preferences are not only accepted, but welcomed by the AFL, and we will give the support needed for the players to live their life as they want knowing the club/AFL will crush any peanut who bobs his head up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Because gay people would like to get married too. It's pretty obvious.
What does it have to be called marriage? People are different, they don't all need to be defined in the same way.

If the argument is that they want the same rights as the union of marriage, that is a different arguement.
 
I want a Scorpio round.

I'm a Scorpio, and proud of it, but it's not just about me, or others like me.

It is estimated that up to one twelfth of all AFL players are also Scorpios, but this has never been publicly acknowledged. Some of the greats of the game are included in our ranks.

It's time to recognise the contribution that Scorpios have made to the game.


It's true. Depression and suicide rates are far higher amongst young Scorpios than any other star sign. The subtle but all to apparent prejudices our Scorpion brothers and sisters face on a daily basis must be addressed.


















Wait, that's not true at all. :confused:
 
What does it have to be called marriage? People are different, they don't all need to be defined in the same way.

Because that is the word we use when two people exchange vows. Why is it so important to you that we create another word for it when the people involved are the same sex? Why do you care?
 
What does it have to be called marriage? People are different, they don't all need to be defined in the same way.

If the argument is that they want the same rights as the union of marriage, that is a different arguement.

Its not the argument about the name unfortunately. The idea of marriage under another name (exactly the same rights and benefits etc, just different name) has been rejected by those against gay marriage because they think its just marriage by another name.

Even the civil register got rejected, and that had virtually no weight behind it.
 
Coon - cheese; **** - footstool; gag - smoke; homo - man

Intentionally interpreting EVERYTHING I the worst possible manner does not strengthen the argument to have society become more accepting. It does, however, serve to annoy people who otherwise could not care either way, such as sensoring legitimate words.

* this was the ONLY word the swear filter picked up. :thumbsdown:
 
Its not the argument about the name unfortunately. The idea of marriage under another name (exactly the same rights and benefits etc, just different name) has been rejected by those against gay marriage because they think its just marriage by another name.

Even the civil register got rejected, and that had virtually no weight behind it.

Okay, well I do not agree with that. Same rights for all I say.
 
It's not like the boys club attitude is exclusive to the AFL. Just imagine gay NBA players. John Amaechi came out after he retired, but I can't see an active player coming out for decades in that code. I think the general attitude among players is that like the military at one time, it would destroy team chemistry, bonding and trust. I would bet that is your average hetero NBA player's thoughts, and probably isn't far from AFL too.
 
Okay, well I do not agree with that. Same rights for all I say.

I actually think if you have civil unions with identical rights as marriage for all, many straight couples would take it up too. Just look how many get married in registry offices these days, its not a religious thing for many people now.
 
Because that is the word we use when two people exchange vows. Why is it so important to you that we create another word for it when the people involved are the same sex? Why do you care?
Read my arguement, I care that by making an argument sound progressive one assumes the moral high ground with no sympathy to those who think otherwise.

Personally I am happy for it to be called marriage either way. I have also attended gay marriages, but they were not in Australia.
 
Sheesh, tough crowd...

It's my way of saying I don't the AFL to keep believing they are the social engineers of society.

I feel the same way about their multi-cultural round, and I'm (shock, horror) "multi-cultural" myself...(whatever the **** that means)

I am happy with the indiginous round, as I think that served a genuine purpose, in that time and place, and the culture of actual AFL players at the time. All the others, I don't care too much for.

If you guys believe that a special gayfl round will open the doors for gays to come out of the closet and gain wider acceptance, well, more power to ya, but I have my doubts. When you're dealing with a lifetime of built up prejudice, such things are window dressing (IMO)
 
Agree with CF.

Would like to see:
Rivalry Round
Heritage Round
Grassroots weekend or whatever it was

Not trying to be offensive or anything but why can't everyone be the same?
Don't need a round dedicated to women or indigenous people. All part of the AFL and we all know it.


How did that work out for Kelli Underwood when she was commentating for Channel 10 last year?

Aussie Rules is still thought of as the domain of men. People tolerate Chelsea Roffey because she's only a goal umpire, but I bet if she wanted to be a field umpire, there'd be plenty of calls akin to "what does a woman know about football?".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top