DuncanRG

I agree that homophobia is not as damaging or widespread in football as racism once was. Crucially though, your suspicion doesn't seem to be shared by gay footballers.

Was that gradual change not led of pushed along by people? What natural force is changing these things?

I'm choosing my own personal values, as everybody does. There is no objectivity in such matters, only the united force of consensus. I'm throwing my two cents in according to my conscience. It's not your money or time if you don't want to support it. It promotes the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing when a problem is perceived to exist. You can't disagree with that, only the existence of the problem which we've talked about already. As I've said, the campaign looks to prove that football fans are not homophobic and would happily accept gay footballers coming out. That's kind of the idea. It's football against homophobia, not anti-homophobia against football.

How many social injustices were solved through silence? Here's one key difference with paedophilia and the key reason for its rejection: the lack of consent. Paedophilia is rape. Sadly not. So do you believe the majority of the population are tolerant? Powerful people - white people - had to change their minds to grant equal rights to all. You say it was a product of changed attitudes; the civil rights movement was led by black people. At what point did black people enjoy being treated as second class citizens and when did their attitudes change? The only thing that changed was their belief that they could do something about it, galvanized by Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, John Lewis etc.

Do you think values and norms change over time without any degree of human intervention? Would racism would have declined in the game (and society) without people moving and working against it? There was plenty of 'resentment and obstinacy' during the civil rights movement in the US, as there tends to be in any time of change, but things got done and the US became a better place. I agree to an extent - it seems to me that this campaign is trying to unite the tolerant majority, because we tend to keep quiet about these sorts of things. That can serve as a kind of tacit consent to the prejudice of the minority.

Let's look at this another way. What are the negative consequences of an anti-homophobia initiative? The underlying hostility in some of these posts suggests that people feel some threat to traditional power structures, where straight, white males are allowed to say more or less anything they like at the expense of 'abnormal' people. Our friend buctootim has conveniently listed some, including fat people and, paradoxically, women. I wonder why you don't mention race. Is race different? Why can we take the **** out of someone for their gender or sexuality, but not their race? Approach this question logically and this is the point at which you understand what myself and others have been saying. On the (absolutely absurd) comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia - objections to paedophilia are about consent. Children under 16 are not deemed mature enough to consent to sex and understand its implications. Sex without consent is rape. There is a moral gulf between adults who take advantage of the immaturity of children, and consenting adults in homosexual relationships.

I'll help you out - it's not true in the slightest.

Put it better than I ever could.

Not one person in your workforce admitted to it. There is overwhelming statistical evidence to suggest that there are LGBT footballers. In the case of your workforce you would have to consider other figures - what percentage voted Conservative in the area(s) you operate out of, for example. If you're based in a Labour stronghold there is a bigger chance that nobody voted Conservative, but sexuality is not affected by geography. 94 per cent identified as heterosexual. It should have been fairly obvious that straight people did not make up 2 per cent of the population. Mass chants of 'W-nker! W-nker! W-nker!' at opposition players and officials. We had that yesterday. Individuals or smaller groups shouting abuse when players come to take throw-ins, etc. Obtuse gestures are very common. Examples last season of coins and other objects being thrown at players. A lot of fans enjoy launching abuse and trying to unsettle the opposition with it. We know that fans who are prone to abusing people will use what they know about a player as ammunition - John Terry for example says he gets things about his wife and children on a regular basis. There's no reason to think someone's sexuality would be anything other than 'ammunition' to these types. Race used to be - players are worried that sexuality still is, and if the reaction from some of you lot to a simple, small campaign like this is anything to go by, 'hostile' is indeed the word. If people could somehow tell without fail, without someone having to tell them, then the concept of 'coming out' wouldn't exist.

It is utterly ludicrous to even float the idea there are no gay footballers in England. 2.2% of men surveyed in 2011/12 identified (identified, remember) as gay, bisexual or 'other'. In other words, 1 in 50 identified. Do you think, with the thousands of professional footballers playing in England, it's even worth humouring the idea of such a bizarre coincidence having occurred?

It seems to be a problem across several sports, but none have quite the hostility (towards all sorts of things) that football does. I've heard of a handful of gay rugby players but also read articles questioning why there aren't many players 'out'. A quick google confirms the same for racing.

No, not really, but keeping the secret hurts people. You and I, as straight people, can't know what it's like but I am at least channelling what I know from the accounts of the people who it actually affects. I'm listening and trying to understand their experiences - you're not. If it were all okay and not worth worrying about then nobody would be talking about it at all.

Like I say, I hope they give the players the freedom to decide that for themselves. I'd hate to think there are any players at Southampton who feel they have to bear the burden of hiding their sexuality.

Gay players are afraid to come out. One of the two who has done so felt that he couldn't stay in the game. He eventually returned to football in America, where the sport is more family-oriented and lacking the hostility of European/English crowds. The other committed suicide. He cited response to his sexuality, albeit in the courts rather than football, in his note. That's a problem.

Perhaps not, but they'd be wrong to think there wasn't a problem at all. I hope you're being intentionally tasteless and do possess empathy of some kind.

When we hit our stride we'll be pretty fearsome. We've just got to ensure it happens relatively soon and lasts. I think most of it's in place but there's no time for complacency.

Indeed. We'll see if the players are given the freedom to wear them I suppose, or if Saints engage in any other initiatives.

Should we set aside a few minutes before games in England so gay players can chant back? Perhaps it would be more practical to promote real tolerance and not work at the convenience of the privileged.

Who knows. Would they be right to demand a change?

Key quote from that: "Being interchangeable is no bad thing, but unless you have quick transitions in the middle of the field it can leave sides flailing for a target to hit."

Say the laws in Saudi Arabia were repealed, but when women went to matches they were shouted down and abused until they no longer felt welcome. Would they be right to demand a change? Excuse my pronoun choice, of course I don't assume that either. I'm just trying to evoke some kind of collective responsibility.

It is exactly the same in principle. Should women 'demand that everyone else change', including the law in this case, to accomodate them? Of course they should. Lack of change protects the privileged - straight, white men - who have had it all their way for as long as anybody can remember. If these enemies of progress were to have had their way in previous decades we wouldn't have black players in the England team today. Was it wrong to bring that change about? I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is that we are not accepting these people irrespective of their sexuality - we are accepting them because we assume them to be straight. For one reason or another, not a single gay player feels safe in coming out. If someone were to do so, I have faith that most would do the right thing, welcome them and get on with it, but there would be a minority hellbent on giving them abuse and making them feel unwelcome on a football field. The players themselves seem to agree.

I thought Osvaldo looked good. Should have scored, but Lallana missed an equally good chance and Lambert and Rodriguez did the same against Sunderland. People miss. There's improvement to be made in the movement and shape of the team, and ironing out the creases that tend to come with those changes and the arrival of new players. Yesterday it was just finishing.

Women aren't allowed to go to football matches in Saudi Arabia. Would you tell them this? 'The culture of the majority', as you put it, can be changed. Someone threw a banana at John Barnes.

Because they haven't, not to team mates. If interviews, memoirs etc are to be believed it's very much a 'don't ask, don't tell' situation in dressing rooms. When it's an important part of your identity I can imagine how difficult it is to keep it from people, especially people who you're supposed to feel a bond with, like your team mates and fans. And does this sign of solidarity not help to deconstruct the 'prevailing macho culture' that's prohibiting them from being who they are?