/ 2018 London Gay Games

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
Muel - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Because they're too soft and sissy to compete in regular games? :P

In seriousness, because they want to. Why shouldn't they have it?
lost1977 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Muel:

but surely isnt this discrimination
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Because the normal olympics doesn't have the '400m Skipping whilst singing What a gay day in a larry grayson voice' event
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Muel:

>
> In seriousness, because they want to. Why shouldn't they have it?

Because it makes a mockery of the attempted inclusiveness of the rest of society. Can you imagine the outcry if there was a 'straight games' or if a certain sector of society wanted to keep other traditions, for example marriage, strictly the preserve of heterosexual people?

Oh hang on...

Being gay doesn't make you any less, or more, able to compete in sport. Sexuality shouldn't come into anything; marriage, job application, sport etc etc. Having a 'gay games' just pisses people off. Why are gay people special? They aren't and shouldn't be treated so, either positively or negatively.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Muel:
>
> In seriousness, because they want to. Why shouldn't they have it?

No reason why they shouldn't I just think if they're top athletes just go out and qualify for the Olympic Games. The Para Olympics is totally understandable but having one for gay people just appears pointless. What next the Farmers Games??

Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

"Having a 'gay games' just pisses people off."

If it pisses you off that much, you probably need to find something else to worry about.

"Why are gay people special? They aren't and shouldn't be treated so, either positively or negatively."

I agree, but in practice they aren't. Give it another 20 years, though, and I think they will be.

Neil
In reply to Steve Perry: I agree with Steve. There's been so much comotion on UKC about the gay marriage proposals, with everyone being critical of hte Church for not wanting to allow gay marriage, with UKCers saying it's never acceptable to discriminate etc etc...but when the discrimination is reversed, it's just accepted!?

as steve said, what would be the public outcry if it was anounced that there would be a 'straight games' being held, and under no circumstances could anyone who was gay compete!
Ramblin dave - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
Agreed. Once we've dealt with the harassment, prejudice, intimidation, bullying and physical violence that people experience for being gay I'll get around to railing against the shocking injustice of me not being able to enter the Gay Games.
Sir Chasm - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Is there some sort of test? Or will it be ok to self-declare?
lost1977 - on 14 Jan 2013
i wonder how they decide who qualifies (does someone who is slightly gay or do you really have to be a massive cock loving gay).

presently i'm waiting to find out weather i'm deaf enough for the deaflympics (it probably going to be pretty borderline)
Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):

Does it actually have a rule that no straight people can compete? I bet it doesn't.

Or has it just come about because sporting culture can be homophobic? (There are gay rugby teams, for instance, for that sort of reason).

Neil
mkean - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
Is it actually a "Gay only games", I mean the Olympic games doesn't just cater for Ancient Greek sports? Can anyone enter provided they don't make any obvious faux pas like inviting their wife?
Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Exactly.

I bet you could if you wanted to, anyway. Just as straight people are allowed in most[1] gay bars, but will often[2] choose not to.

[1] There are exceptions, though some of it is more bouncers asking fairly pointed questions to ensure someone isn't likely to cause a problem by exhibiting homophobic type behaviour, from which they are largely intended to protect.

[2] Pink Punters in Bletchley is a very popular nightclub type venue for straight people in MK as well, largely because it doesn't have "attitude" like most of the city centre clubs do.

Neil
Jimbo C - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

I think it's a silly idea. Gay people can already compete on a level playing field with everyone else at the olympics and paralympics. Have they thought about the possibility that there are athletes who might not want to be 'out'.

Being homosexual does not make a person special. Whatever next, the Muslim Games, the Vegan Games??
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

Funny how it's hetro white men who seem the first on here to quibble anything different, whether it's something just for women, or something else like these games.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

I think it's a slightly funny idea. But as to why, it's fairly obvious.

In recent history gay people have been treated rather badly, you know, murdered by the state, that kind of thing. Only in the past few decades has that abuse declined to the level of mere stereotyping and harassment with, more recently, the law on the side of the victim.

So, in order to try to give gay people something positive to be associated with, and to show gay people as something other than the mincing queens and bulldykes they are stereotyped as, you get stuff like this. Does it work? I dunno.

As for discrimination...

If you think this is discrimination, then you simply don't understand what discrimination is. It is being treated unfavourably on unfair grounds like race or sexuality, for example when trying to access something that everyone else is entitled to. So if you go to the library and try to borrow a book and the lady behind the counter says "no, I'm sorry, you're too fat to borrow that", or you try to enter a bouldering competition and you're told "no, you may be able to climb V14 but you're too posh", that's discrimination.

Holding an additional event for a community of people when there are countless opportunities for everyone from every community to compete in these sports is not discrimination, because no one is being denied an opportunity on unfair grounds.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC):
> (In reply to Steve Perry) I agree with Steve. There's been so much comotion on UKC about the gay marriage proposals, with everyone being critical of hte Church for not wanting to allow gay marriage, with UKCers saying it's never acceptable to discriminate etc etc...but when the discrimination is reversed, it's just accepted!?
>
> as steve said, what would be the public outcry if it was anounced that there would be a 'straight games' being held, and under no circumstances could anyone who was gay compete!

Errr I said not one word of that!

aultguish on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: I bet there'll be queues to get into the relay team.....(oops, ignore that pun at the end)
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: I think you and a few others are taking things a bit too seriously. It's no secret that for many competitors the Olympics was a great oppurtunity for like minded people to meet and do what consenting adults do. I would have thought the gay games will be the same.

Any suggestion that this is instead of the normal games is silly, I'm sure there were gay people there.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
>
> Funny how it's hetro white men who seem the first on here to quibble anything different, whether it's something just for women, or something else like these games.

As a group it's the least likely to experience any descirmination or harrasment in the UK.
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> What next the Farmers Games??

I take it you have never been to Kilnsey show then? :-)
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon: At which post was I taking things a bit too seriously, my only point has been that a games specifically for gay people in my opinion appears pointless and that statement is not serious.
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: On a more serious note though. More of Less did a statistical analysis of footballers of all time and discovered that compared with a conservative estimate of the number of gay men in society, there is a startling lack of gay men in the league - or at least those who admit being gay.

It is all very well for those of us who don't have to cope with being stigmatised and vilified on a daily basis telling those who do that they shouldn't have their own games, but I think until you have been in that position, it is difficult to give an objective opinion.
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Becuase you can't seem to concieve that this might just be about like minded people meeting up and having some fun.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Steve Perry) Is there some sort of test? Or will it be ok to self-declare?

There is a test for medalists. This guy passed:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/henrik-rummel-erection-us-rower
Steve John B - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: My money's on Tyson Gay for the 100m.

Apart from that, it's wide open...

<sorry>

Nothing against it, but the 'cause' would probably be better served by more mainstream sportspeople coming out.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Muel)
>
> [...]
>
> Because it makes a mockery of the attempted inclusiveness of the rest of society. Can you imagine the outcry if there was a 'straight games' or if a certain sector of society wanted to keep other traditions, for example marriage, strictly the preserve of heterosexual people?
>
> Oh hang on...
>
> Being gay doesn't make you any less, or more, able to compete in sport. Sexuality shouldn't come into anything; marriage, job application, sport etc etc. Having a 'gay games' just pisses people off. Why are gay people special? They aren't and shouldn't be treated so, either positively or negatively.

What you fail to understand is that when one group is the mainstream and holds all of the power over what traditions are allowed, while another group is one that has suffered a history of appalling abuse at the hands of the mainstream, you start off on completely unequal footing. If you're blind to the abuse of the minority group and you think, "well, I don't mind their existence" then you might want everything to be equal and no one to make a fuss. However, the history of abusing groups of people tends to have an effect on their collective psyche. Do black people just feel the same as white people, or do they seem often to have a element of their identity which is related to the history of how black people have been treated by whites? It would be nice to just pretend that a history of abuse never happened, and that everyone's equal now, the world is fine, don't make a fuss, but that's not how people in minorities feel. They feel that positive stuff needs to be done in order to set themselves on a more equal footing with the mainstream, because their footing is not yet equal.

Is the Gay Games the best way to do that for gays? I'm not convinced it is. But I find it a bit irksome that people's attempts to do something positive are met with a kind of sneering dismissal from people who simply have no grasp of the issues at hand.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)

> As for discrimination...
>
> If you think this is discrimination, then you simply don't understand what discrimination is. It is being treated unfavourably on unfair grounds like race or sexuality,
>

No, it's the prejudicial treatment of a group and that can be either in a positive way or a negative way.

> Holding an additional event for a community of people when there are countless opportunities for everyone from every community to compete in these sports is not discrimination, because no one is being denied an opportunity on unfair grounds.

That's a very poor line of argument because gay people aren't denied the opportunity to compete in other competitions but straight people won't be able to compete in the 'gay' games and, therefore, a whole group of people are being denied an opportunity.

GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What you fail to understand is that when one group is the mainstream and holds all of the power over what traditions are allowed, while another group is one that has suffered a history of appalling abuse at the hands of the mainstream, you start off on completely unequal footing.

So Ussain Bolt should bugger off and stick to his own black games ?
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon: I can conceive that just fine, what you don't seem to grasp is - besides the fun element - a games is for testing an athlete's ability therefore my point is if they are serious about that then why not qualify for the Olympic Games. If it's just fun they're after they surely gay people don't need a city games for that.
Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

"That's a very poor line of argument because gay people aren't denied the opportunity to compete in other competitions but straight people won't be able to compete in the 'gay' games"

I'm going to post it again because people seem to be glossing over it.

Have they actually *said* that straight people may not compete? Or is it just that they wouldn't want to? Two very different situations indeed.

Neil
Chris the Tall - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to carrot_boy (North East Wales MC))
>
> Does it actually have a rule that no straight people can compete? I bet it doesn't.
>
Pretty sure it doesn't. I seem to remember an article by Dennis Gray about it years ago - I think climbing is (or) was included
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
> [...]
>
> Is the Gay Games the best way to do that for gays? I'm not convinced it is. But I find it a bit irksome that people's attempts to do something positive are met with a kind of sneering dismissal from people who simply have no grasp of the issues at hand.

Or have a different opinion to you?

I take your point about history but nothing was ever improved by looking backwards. I'm not condoning the past treatment of black people by saying that a gay games is positive discrimination and, therefore, unhealthy - that is strawman territory.

Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> So Ussain Bolt should bugger off and stick to his own black games ?

You'll have to run that by me again, I have no idea what you're on about.
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

> That's a very poor line of argument because gay people aren't denied the opportunity to compete in other competitions but straight people won't be able to compete in the 'gay' games and, therefore, a whole group of people are being denied an opportunity.

How do you know? Why do you never see or hear about gay footballers? Statistically, there should be quite a few of them. Or maybe they feel that being a footballer and gay just isn't worth the agro?
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> [...]
>
> How do you know? Why do you never see or hear about gay footballers? Statistically, there should be quite a few of them. Or maybe they feel that being a footballer and gay just isn't worth the agro?

Or maybe that's it's none of our business.

lost1977 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

surely if a straight person competed they would be labelled gay wether they were or not (i see this as a form of blackmail)
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> No, it's the prejudicial treatment of a group and that can be either in a positive way or a negative way.

I guess I'm talking about discrimination that matters and is a bad thing rather than a theoretical definition.

>
> That's a very poor line of argument because gay people aren't denied the opportunity to compete in other competitions but straight people won't be able to compete in the 'gay' games and, therefore, a whole group of people are being denied an opportunity.

So straight people want to compete at the gay games but are being denied the opportunity? I'd like to be more polite, but that is bollox.
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon) I can conceive that just fine, what you don't seem to grasp is - besides the fun element - a games is for testing an athlete's ability therefore my point is if they are serious about that then why not qualify for the Olympic Games.

I'm sure some did. This is not instead of... so I haven't failed to grasp anything.

> If it's just fun they're after they surely gay people don't need a city games for that.

People can do what they want as long as its legal.... what is your problem?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
> [...]
>
> So straight people want to compete at the gay games but are being denied the opportunity? I'd like to be more polite, but that is bollox.

And the reverse is also true. You've deconstructed your own argument - there is no need for a gay games.

If a community want to get together to have some fun, as another posted put it, then why does that need to be in a major city using publicly funded buildings and with a, not inconsequential, cost to the state at a time when it can be ill-afforded?

Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> Or maybe that's it's none of our business.

Very true, it isn't anybody's business, but there are football insiders/pundits who think there is still a problem for gay footballers to do with being open about thier sexuality.
skarabrae - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Muel: how do you prove your gay to compete in them?
Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to lost1977:

Which in itself shows there is still a massive stigma there, which this is some small amount of compensation for, perhaps.

If there was no homophobia, it wouldn't be necessary. But that someone cares whether they are labelled gay or not demonstrates unequivocally that there is.

FWIW, if you know you are not gay (or indeed if you know you are), why does it matter? You don't have to answer, it's a somewhat rhetorical question that just illustrates the problem.

Neil
lost1977 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

don't have a problem with gay people but i wouldnt want to be labelled as gay when i wasn't, not because of any hate i have for gays but its simply not what i am
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

> Or maybe that's it's none of our business.

Good point. Can we add racism and sexism to "none of our business" too? After all, I don't suffer from either of those.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: A lot of people seem to be missing the point on this. Society is not equal, people do not have equal opportunities, gay people still face disproportionate discrimination as do many other groups in society. Even if in legislature people are equal, this often doesn't bear out in reality due to dominant cultures persisting in the workplace/sport etc. If a gay games encourages more openly gay people into sport, makes them more comfortable taking part, then surely this is a good way of addressing centuries of injustice?
joel182 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> Or maybe that's it's none of our business.

The sexuality of any individual footballer isn't our business, but the huge lack of out gay footballers (compared to what the amount would be if it were similar to the generation population) is an issue.
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> there is no need for a gay games.

Clearly, many gay sportsmen and women feel differently.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> And the reverse is also true. You've deconstructed your own argument - there is no need for a gay games.
>
> If a community want to get together to have some fun, as another posted put it, then why does that need to be in a major city using publicly funded buildings and with a, not inconsequential, cost to the state at a time when it can be ill-afforded?

Your only makes sense if you view gay people and straight people as two equal groups in society. Can't you see the completely different purposes of a mainstream sporting event (which is just about the sport and absolutely must not discriminate) and something like the gay games (which is an event using sport as a vehicle to do something positive in terms of identity politics or whatever for a minority group).

Your assertion that the gay games isn't needed is perfectly correct in terms of what it does for mainstream sport. But if a minority group gets a bad deal in society, do you really think it's your place to say that something attempting to address that a bit is "not needed"?
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to skarabrae:
> (In reply to Muel) how do you prove your gay to compete in them?

Just a thought off the top of my head really, if one Gay Games happens every so often, while conventional games happen all the time, why does it really matter if there are Gay Games?

Hetrosexuality/male to female attraction is used to sell anything from tissues in boxes to deoderant, to diy tools and all kinds of things.

Can't we as a society be chilled out enough to see the occasional Gay Games as okay?

Why is it such a big deal in the grand scheme of things?
JoshOvki on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

I think you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick there. I believe the equivalent is Fickalli saying it is none of our business if they are black or a woman etc. Not the effect of sexism or racism.

I personally believe that it is a daft idea to have a "Gay Games", there is no reason why they don't (and some do) compete in the Olympic Games. If anything they are separating themselves further by insisting that they are different than everyone else.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> I think you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick there. I believe the equivalent is Fickalli saying it is none of our business if they are black or a woman etc. Not the effect of sexism or racism.
>
> I personally believe that it is a daft idea to have a "Gay Games", there is no reason why they don't (and some do) compete in the Olympic Games. If anything they are separating themselves further by insisting that they are different than everyone else.

In your perception they are, another perception might be that it could help closseted gay people feel better about themselves, in seeing at as a celebration or affirmation of thier sexuality, in light of th fact that hetrosexuality/hetrosexual attraction is used to sell all kinds of things in adverts.

What do you say to that?
Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to lost1977:

Would you care to the same extent if your career was mis-stated, particularly if you were labelled as having your dream career when you don't?

We're getting very rhetorical, and I doubt many people dream of being gay! But do you see my point? If it bothers you, there is absolutely a stigma - it might not be you that carries it, but you might be concerned of others' reactions because there is a stigma there in society, IYSWIM.

Another comparison might be - you've never met me, nor have I got round to putting any photos up on my profile (or indeed anything else). I'm 33, 6' 4", slightly podgy, dark hair, if that's a reasonable description for you. But I couldn't care less if you thought I was 45, 5' 6", skinny and bald, say, it is of no concern to me. See what I mean?

I am not casting aspersions at you - but at society generally.

Neil
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
> [...]
>
>
> Your assertion that the gay games isn't needed is perfectly correct in terms of what it does for mainstream sport. But if a minority group gets a bad deal in society, do you really think it's your place to say that something attempting to address that a bit is "not needed"?

My assertion that the gay games 'isn't needed' has now been taken out of context by at least two people. It was the result of a series of posts not an absolute statement.

I don't think positive discrimination is the way to address 'a minority group {getting} a bad deal in society' as it merely reinforces the inference that the 'minority group' is different and worthy of special treatment be that positive or negative.

Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> [...]
>
> Good point. Can we add racism and sexism to "none of our business" too? After all, I don't suffer from either of those.

Seriously?

Neil Williams - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

And I propose that this isn't positive discrimination in that sense any more than a competition organised for climbers (say) is. Unless straight people are prohibited from entering, for which no-one has yet provided any evidence whatsoever.

Neil
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

Or to put it another way, anyone who things that gay people are perceived as equal to straights in general in our society is having laugh.
Chris the Tall - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
Do people have the same objections to Gay Bars ?
puppythedog on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Jon expresses himself well as usual. i am suprised to see so few views concordant with his. It's an opportunity for a group of people, who have been and continue to be badly treated, to demonstarte theselves positively.
this in turn might have knock on effects if well received such that poeple in mainstream sports who are gay might come out. There was a lad on the front cover of Attitude who plays in the premier league making the point that more footballers should come out. But then why would you if you are likely to abused on the grounds of your sexuality? Racism is almost universally considered to be a bad thing and yet id evident in football an dother sports. There is a quiet permitted homophobia (sometimes loud and violent) in this country. Any opportunity to challneg that should be applauded not ridiculed because you don't have a special sort of olympics just for you or becuase 'they can compete in the olympics.
Is anyone hard done by becuase the events will take place?

ads.ukclimbing.com
JoshOvki on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

There are already events to help gay people (whether closeted or not) feel better about themselves, gay pride for example. Do you really think that adverts can make homosexual people feel worse about themselves because they don't make homosexual adverts too?! Your homosexual friends must be much more sensitive than mine.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

In the case of the Gay Games though, it could simply about raising the profile of gays and lesbians, like gay pride marches do. It's definately true that gay pride events can play some part in helping people come to terms with thier sexuality.

Isn't the positive drip drip effect of these kinds of events worth it, in helping people in getting to grips with who they are and how they feel about themselves.

I'd politely suggest you've no conception of the feeling of guilt and self-disgust which gays and lesbians can experience while comming to terms with who they are.

For them, Gay Games can just be a way of telling them it's actually okaay. In light of this, where is the problem?
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> There are already events to help gay people (whether closeted or not) feel better about themselves, gay pride for example. Do you really think that adverts can make homosexual people feel worse about themselves because they don't make homosexual adverts too?! Your homosexual friends must be much more sensitive than mine.

It's the constant drip drip drip effect, rather like the effect which airbrushed images of women can have on teenage girls, which is also a problem. It can have an effect subconciously.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]

> I don't think positive discrimination is the way to address 'a minority group {getting} a bad deal in society' as it merely reinforces the inference that the 'minority group' is different and worthy of special treatment be that positive or negative.

I know what you mean. The only thing I disagree about is drawing parallels between harmful discrimination against a minority group that has been oppressed through history, and something like the gay games which is not (meaningful) discrimination because (while I agree about reinforcing the idea of difference and how that might be unhelpful) it doesn't deny anyone anything.

But I'm pretty much with you on the effect that the gay games is likely to have, and as someone pointed out upthread a much more positive effect would come from seeing more openly gay people in mainstream sports (and other stuff, not just when they're outed by the press as a scandal).
EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:

> There are already events to help gay people (whether closeted or not) feel better about themselves, gay pride for example.

I think that is a bit disingenuous. It would be like me saying that the Ramblers Society sufficiently promotes climbing in a positive light. Not all gay people want to parade in pink flares and sequins down the middle of the high street.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> There are already events to help gay people (whether closeted or not) feel better about themselves, gay pride for example. Do you really think that adverts can make homosexual people feel worse about themselves because they don't make homosexual adverts too?! Your homosexual friends must be much more sensitive than mine.

One gay friend did go through a period of not accepting it, most definately.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli: Well how do you address injustice then? You have to do more than simply make people equal in law in order to redress the balance of past discrimination. After years of legal homophobia, certain institutions have developed homophobic cultures, some sports for instance. Just like after centuries of sexism, certain proffessions have become all male and developed sexist cultures. It is in my view insufficient simply to ask long oppressed groups top grow thick skins and hold their noses as they battle into these proffesions and clubs they have now gained legal access to. Something must be done to make it easier to access such institutions.

If participating in the company of similar people helps force change this is a good thing. Minority groups are treated differently, this is fact, society is already divided on these lines. Doing nothing will perpetuate this status quo. Realising society is fractured on these lines and then implementing positive change is a way of changing this.
JoshOvki on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Possibly we should just ban adverts that contain people encase they cause someone to have a problem?

I really hope your friends feeling where not caused by adverts.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> In the case of the Gay Games though, it could simply about raising the profile of gays and lesbians, like gay pride marches do. It's definately true that gay pride events can play some part in helping people come to terms with thier sexuality.
>
> For them, Gay Games can just be a way of telling them it's actually okaay. In light of this, where is the problem?

Fair points and I certainly won't be protesting about the fact that a gay games is taking place but, theoretically, I don't agree with the premise for the reasons I have stated above.

I, like many others, would like a society where we are all treated equally regardless of race, sex, sexuality etc. I don't think that events like this which, in my opinion, only serve to highlight that these people are 'different' is the way to achieve that. Neither do I agree with those forms you fill in stating your ethnicity when you apply for a job, nor the fact that a disable applicant for a public sector post must be interviewed etc. I don't believe that positively discriminating sectors of society to make amends for history is a sensible way to approach the future.

I understand that others will disagree with me and I have the luxury of being able to experience the world from a privileged position being a white, straight, middle class male but treating people equally is not discrediting history. I don't care if someone is gay or black or a woman or whatever - it is none of my business and they will be treated the same and, to repeat, I think that events to highlight their 'difference' are counter productive.


JoshOvki on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

Not everyone at gay pride is running around in pink flares and sequins. I can't help but think the Gay Games, would end up being a lot like that mind, with pink and rainbow flags everywhere. To me gay people are no different to straight people, so why do they try and segregate themselves?
Jim Lancs - on 14 Jan 2013
You can have get togethers to hold games in any groupings you choose. 'Firefighters' come from all over the world to attend their 'Firefighter Games'. It's a social and common bond group type thing. It doesn't discriminate against anyone - I guess pyromaniacs could hold their own games if they wished.

And it doesn't matter if there is an overlap with 'discrimination law'. The English National Cross Country Championships exclude the Scots, but aren't racist.
paulcarey - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

I can understand where you are coming from, but sexuality is only just starting to become a non-issue. Your OP talks about the description of an ideal set of circumstances where no one is discrimnated against, rather than necessarily what it is experienced in real life. Hence why a group of people (mainly volunteers) feel it necessary to hold a gay games. As has already been mentioned the very lack of 'out' athletes shows there is still a problem with being an 'out' sportsman. As attitudes continue to change this kind of thing may stop happening becuase there is no longer a social need for it.

I really don't understand why this pisses you off.

For the record the vast majority of athletes are amateur and of varying degrees of ability and in my experience of any gay sports club has been very welcome to everybody regardless of sexuality.

EeeByGum - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> Not everyone at gay pride is running around in pink flares and sequins. I can't help but think the Gay Games, would end up being a lot like that mind, with pink and rainbow flags everywhere. To me gay people are no different to straight people, so why do they try and segregate themselves?

Maybe you should speak to some gay people and see what they think about it? Alternatively, there have been some very good pro-gay responses on here.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> Not everyone at gay pride is running around in pink flares and sequins. I can't help but think the Gay Games, would end up being a lot like that mind, with pink and rainbow flags everywhere.

I think you're right. I won't be watching, it will embarrass me.

> To me gay people are no different to straight people, so why do they try and segregate themselves?

Difficult question. I've got a few ideas on it, but given the pharmacology exam I have tomorrow, I won't spend this afternoon waffling on about it.


JoshOvki on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

I have, spoken 6 gay people about it, all heavily involved in sports, 2 up to a professional level. Had mixed reviews from them all, some think it is good, others think it is bad. A bit like the people commenting on here really.
Chris Harris - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to aultguish:
> (In reply to Steve Perry) I bet there'll be queues to get into the relay team.....(oops, ignore that pun at the end)

I can see it now. "Hey, that's not the baton".

Some good discussion on here. Timmd and Jon Stewart raise good points. I think it is purely to encourage homosexuals to be more confident and "proud" and yes it wouldn't be so much of an issue if other sports stars came out.

Then again there's the arguments about it being a vicious circle and having a "gay games" segregates them more and people shouldn't need to "come out" as it's no one else's business.

I really hate the phrase "coming out" as I agree it really is no one elses business but as time goes along it happens whether you like it or not. I find it quite hard as it's not obvious that I am gay so people naturally make the assumption I am straight and it's only when I say that I have a boyfriend that people find out whereas being hetrosexual you don't really have to deal with that. Obviously this has no bearing on the Gay Games but hopefully provides a little more insight. Of course everyone has things like this to deal with in one way or another I suppose, it's unfortunately something I've never been good at dealing with myself.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli: If these are your considered opinions, then you are being blissfully ignorant to reality.

Lets just accept this massively unequal society we have with its divisions drawn along wealth, ethnicity, gender and sexuality lines and allow it to perpetuate in the future. While us straight, middle class, white guys blab on about how everyone is equal in our eyes and boast about how many gay, ethnic, poor etc. friends we all have.

Well that is an option but its also the implicitly racist, sexist, homophobic one.

Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Possibly we should just ban adverts that contain people encase they cause someone to have a problem?

We have advertising standards to watch out for that though.

> I really hope your friends feeling where not caused by adverts.

It wouldn't have JUST been adverts, but a number of things collectively, the Gay Games could just be something small to push the other way a bit, if you don't see your own minority represented, it can make you feel marginalised. It's not quite mainstream yet I think, in people being able to be open about thier sexuality if they want to be, or how gay people are viewed, there's still a lot of sterotyping.
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to JoshOvki)
> [...]
>
> We have advertising standards to watch out for that though.
>
> [...]
>
> It wouldn't have JUST been adverts, but a number of things collectively, the Gay Games could just be something small to push the other way a bit, if you don't see your own minority represented, it can make you feel marginalised. It's not quite mainstream yet I think, in people being able to be open about thier sexuality if they want to be, or how gay people are viewed, there's still a lot of sterotyping.


Yep, you're totally right. I sometimes feel somewhat homophobic myself due to the stereotyping that goes on.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ava Adore - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

Maybe we should also have the Vintage Games. 50+. Or is that veteran?
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Ava Adore: I don't qualify for them either..yet : )
if you think about it this is no different from the likes of Women only swims at pools or Saga Insurance for the over 50's or whatever.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
>
> People can do what they want as long as its legal.... what is your problem?

As said earlier, the cost of holding the games for an individual group that could have taken part in the Olympic Games.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> As said earlier, the cost of holding the games for an individual group that could have taken part in the Olympic Games.

That's not quite the point of them taking place I suspect, more to be of benefit (in part) to teenage boys struggling with who they are, or married men with kids I guess, anybody really.
confusicating on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

Another thing is that it may alter how people see gay folk. For example some people may be homophobic because they don't know any gay people (or think they don't) and have a stereotyped view of gays in their head. This could alter that.

Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

You don't see the point that the two things have completely different purposes then? One is truly about sport, the other is using sport to try to do something positive for a group who get a raw deal.

And you don't want that positive thing done because...
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> As said earlier, the cost of holding the games for an individual group that could have taken part in the Olympic Games.

As I said earlier I'm sure some did compete in London.

I don't know how these games will be funded or what the ecomomic benefits could be, but I don't think you do either?
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> Another thing is that it may alter how people see gay folk. For example some people may be homophobic because they don't know any gay people (or think they don't) and have a stereotyped view of gays in their head. This could alter that.

I think it could do if it has the feel of a mainstream sporting event and the performances are superb - which it might do, we'll have to see.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
>
>
> Well that is an option but its also the implicitly racist, sexist, homophobic one.

How is this implicitly racist, sexist or homophobic when it actually engenders the exact opposite of those attitudes?
paulcarey - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> As said earlier, the cost of holding the games for an individual group that could have taken part in the Olympic Games.

AFAIK it is a largely amateur event for people of all abilities. Just because it has the word 'Games' in the title, doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Olympics.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli: Because by willfully ignoring the sexism, racism and homophobia in society, you perpetuate it, burying your head in the sand yelling 'there is no problem, everyone is equal'. Outside your cosy bubble, people are abused and discriminated against because of their identities. By denying problems you deny any solution and so in turn set the context in which such prejudice can flourish.
puppythedog on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: Good luck with your exam.
GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You'll have to run that by me again, I have no idea what you're on about.

Don't you think blacks have suffered at least as badly as homosexuals ? if we have a gay games, why not a black games ?

dale1968 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: a lot of interest on here, so who's going...
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD: Why not indeed, I don't think anyone, other than yourself thinks this is necessarily a bad idea. Though you do seem to have come to the bizarre conclusion that the gay games is some sort of Olympics for gays and that gays (or blacks) would no be able to take part in the Olympics if they held their own separate games.
tlm - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

"the brainchild of Tom Waddell, whose goals were to promote the spirit of inclusion and participation, as well as the pursuit of personal growth in a sporting event."

"The Gay Games is open to all who wish to participate, without regard to sexual orientation. There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games. It brings together people from all over the world, many from countries where homosexuality remains illegal and hidden."
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> Don't you think blacks have suffered at least as badly as homosexuals ? if we have a gay games, why not a black games ?

The gay games isn't being put on by straight people as an apology to gays for being nasty to them.

Why not a black games? Because black people aren't putting on that event. The reasons why gay activists think that the gay games is a good idea but black activists don't go for an equivalent event are probably quite complicated. Being black and being gay, while both mean that your group has suffered a history of oppression, are not identical or equivalent experiences. A big issue with how gay people are treated is visibility: certain gay people are highly visible as such and that has an influence over how gay people are perceived. Other gay people remain invisible and that also has an effect. This is not the case for black people.

Drawing simplistic logical parallels assuming two very complicated and different things are the same just obfuscates the issue - it's unhelpful.
Ramblin dave - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> Don't you think blacks have suffered at least as badly as homosexuals ? if we have a gay games, why not a black games ?

It'd be fairly pointless, because in most western countries competitive sport is one of the few arenas in which black people are already well represented. Whereas organisations and events that support and/or celebrate black academics, businesspeople etc would make a bit more of a positive difference.

Similarly (to trot out a stereotype of my own), having a London Gay Fashion Week distinct from the main London Fashion Week would probably be a bit redundant...
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Fickalli) Because by willfully ignoring the sexism, racism and homophobia in society, you perpetuate it, burying your head in the sand yelling 'there is no problem, everyone is equal'. Outside your cosy bubble, people are abused and discriminated against because of their identities. By denying problems you deny any solution and so in turn set the context in which such prejudice can flourish.

I'm not ignoring the issues nor burying my head in the sand. If you actually read my posts this is quite clear.

My point is, and remains, that highlighting the 'differences' between minorities and majorities and using those 'differences' as a justification for different treatment is not the solution. Apologising for a history that you have not been a part of does not change the past and using history as an excuse for present treatment is not the solution for the future.

Treating gay people the same as straight people, black people the same as white people and men the same as women is not homophobic, racist or sexist.

Is having a gay games going to make a truly homophobic man less homophobic? Probably not, it might make someone who is indifferent even more indifferent or perhaps raise awareness but it is not going to affect either extreme.

Or, to put it in your language will it stop people outside my 'bubble' being abused and discriminated against? Probably not, but don't be so churlish as to throw inappropriate insults at someone who is not racist, sexist or homophobic. I wouldn't let such actions go unchallenged in my company and so I do not 'set the context for prejudice to flourish'. In fact, it could be argued that positive discrimination sets that very context as it helps create an 'us' and 'them' situation which is certainly going to preclude the 'solution' you want.

ads.ukclimbing.com
TheDrunkenBakers - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: On a similar note, do you have to be Scottish and ginger to compete in the Highland Games?
The New NickB - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

Alternatively, a bunch of like minded people may just fancy getting together and doing something they enjoy.
GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

> Why not indeed, I don't think anyone, other than yourself thinks this is necessarily a bad idea.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the concept of any kind of 'minority' games (providing I'm not paying for it)as I don't see them doing any harm (or any good either to be honest). I was just following Jon's argument about the gay games being needed because gays had suffered discrimination.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
> [...]
>
> The gay games isn't being put on by straight people as an apology to gays for being nasty to them.
>
> Why not a black games? Because black people aren't putting on that event. The reasons why gay activists think that the gay games is a good idea but black activists don't go for an equivalent event are probably quite complicated. Being black and being gay, while both mean that your group has suffered a history of oppression, are not identical or equivalent experiences. A big issue with how gay people are treated is visibility: certain gay people are highly visible as such and that has an influence over how gay people are perceived. Other gay people remain invisible and that also has an effect. This is not the case for black people.
>
> Drawing simplistic logical parallels assuming two very complicated and different things are the same just obfuscates the issue - it's unhelpful.

+1 for the whole post. Very well put.
GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Drawing simplistic logical parallels assuming two very complicated and different things are the same just obfuscates the issue - it's unhelpful.

I'm not sure its entirely unhelpful. There is a danger with a high profile gay games that it could actually hinder the cause. Far better would be to have a Jesse Owens style icon who can shine in the mainstream events. After all its not lik the (overtly) gay community isn't well represented in high profile media positions.

Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> I'm not ignoring the issues nor burying my head in the sand. If you actually read my posts this is quite clear.
>
> My point is, and remains, that highlighting the 'differences' between minorities and majorities and using those 'differences' as a justification for different treatment is not the solution. Apologising for a history that you have not been a part of does not change the past and using history as an excuse for present treatment is not the solution for the future.

> Or, to put it in your language will it stop people outside my 'bubble' being abused and discriminated against? Probably not, but don't be so churlish as to throw inappropriate insults at someone who is not racist, sexist or homophobic. I wouldn't let such actions go unchallenged in my company and so I do not 'set the context for prejudice to flourish'. In fact, it could be argued that positive discrimination sets that very context as it helps create an 'us' and 'them' situation which is certainly going to preclude the 'solution' you want.

Going on this info about the games, it seems like it isn't an apology for the past, or evern positive descrimination, more it's saying 'Hey, this difference is okay'.

...
"the brainchild of Tom Waddell, whose goals were to promote the spirit of inclusion and participation, as well as the pursuit of personal growth in a sporting event."

"The Gay Games is open to all who wish to participate, without regard to sexual orientation. There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games. It brings together people from all over the world, many from countries where homosexuality remains illegal and hidden."
...

It seems fair enough to me, where is the problem in relation to what i've quoted in your post (quoted fairly I hope)?
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
> [...]
>
> As I said earlier I'm sure some did compete in London.
>
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/08/23/openly-gay-olympians-won-six-times-as-many-golds-as-t...

They sure did as the link shows. Percentage wise gay athletes were much better than heterosexual athletes at the Olympics, so why hold their own games?
tlm - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> because gays had suffered discrimination.

...and continue to. It is an international event and being gay is illegal in many countries (punishable by death in * countries: Sudan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, UAE,Yemen, Iran.). It's a chance for gay people from all over the world to be in an open and proud majority for a change, rather than a minority, and seeing as they are organising and funding it, I have no problem at all.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure its entirely unhelpful. There is a danger with a high profile gay games that it could actually hinder the cause.

That's possible, but it doesn't relate to your point about Ussain Bolt running in a black games.

> Far better would be to have a Jesse Owens style icon who can shine in the mainstream events.

I agree, as I said upthread.

> After all its not like the (overtly) gay community isn't well represented in high profile media positions.

This is the point of deliberately (clumsily?) representing gay people as sports people rather than as Graham Nortons or Alan Carr's. I think that the pigeonholing of gay people into those roles contributes to gay kids getting bullied at school, and the general stereotyped perceptions that many people have. How much gay people cause these problems for themselves is a complicated issue.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
> http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/08/23/openly-gay-olympians-won-six-times-as-many-golds-as-t...
>
> ...so why hold their own games?

I won't bother in future.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> "The Gay Games is open to all who wish to participate, without regard to sexual orientation. There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games. It brings together people from all over the world, many from countries where homosexuality remains illegal and hidden."
> ...
>
> It seems fair enough to me, where is the problem in relation to what i've quoted in your post (quoted fairly I hope)?

I agree, it is fair enough. I read the wiki page too. I absolutely don't have an issue with people getting together to have some fun as NickB keeps saying. However, since the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister have both spoken about it today it has gone beyond that and there lies the debate.

There are two ways that a gay games will be interpreted by the population; the more liberal 'hey we're different and that's ok', or another saying 'hey we're different and, therefore, deserve special treatment'.

My argument is that by using publicly funded buildings, making a it a national news story and expecting a public expenditure moves it into the second argument and I don't think that is a healthy way to solve the issue of inequality.

As an aside, I object to being called sexist, racist and homophobic because I said that I people should be treated equally. That isn't debate and it cheapens the issue.

Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
> They sure did as the link shows. Percentage wise gay athletes were much better than heterosexual athletes at the Olympics, so why hold their own games?

[This has been answered several times on this thread but I'll give it one last go before bailing]

Why not? I'd assume most who go to the gay games go to enjoy themselves. These events are obviously a vehicle for people getting together, rather than 'their' version of the Olympics as you seem to think. Do you object to gay bars?
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]

> As an aside, I object to being called sexist, racist and homophobic because I said that I people should be treated equally. That isn't debate and it cheapens the issue.

I don't blame you for objecting.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> I'm not ignoring the issues nor burying my head in the sand. If you actually read my posts this is quite clear.

They're not.

> My point is, and remains, that highlighting the 'differences' between minorities and majorities and using those 'differences' as a justification for different treatment is not the solution. Apologising for a history that you have not been a part of does not change the past and using history as an excuse for present treatment is not the solution for the future.

History sets the context of the present, its not so easy to have a clear break with it as you make out. If unchanged it will set the context of the future.

> Treating gay people the same as straight people, black people the same as white people and men the same as women is not homophobic, racist or sexist.

Treating all people the same is indeed a noble trait and this isn't what I'm arguing against. However, pretending that everyone is treated the same by society is a complete myth and pedalling it is dangerous. It leads to people being outraged by things like gay games, all women shortlists etc as they think these people are getting special privelidges whereas they are actually helping oppressed people to feel more equal.

> Is having a gay games going to make a truly homophobic man less homophobic? Probably not, it might make someone who is indifferent even more indifferent or perhaps raise awareness but it is not going to affect either extreme.

No it will probably not convert homophobes, it may even entrench their position. It may make gay people more comfortable taking part in competitive sport though.

> Or, to put it in your language will it stop people outside my 'bubble' being abused and discriminated against? Probably not, but don't be so churlish as to throw inappropriate insults at someone who is not racist, sexist or homophobic. I wouldn't let such actions go unchallenged in my company and so I do not 'set the context for prejudice to flourish'. In fact, it could be argued that positive discrimination sets that very context as it helps create an 'us' and 'them' situation which is certainly going to preclude the 'solution' you want.

There is an us and them situation already. Look at the percentage of openly gay sports people, women government ministers, working class journos, women FTSE CEOs. The question is not whether positive discrimination will divide people into camps (they are already) its whether or not it will make society more equal. To pretend people are already treated equally, denies the need for change, and in turn supports the implicitly racist, sexist and homophobic status quo in many areas of society.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
> [...]
>
> [This has been answered several times on this thread but I'll give it one last go before bailing]
>
> Do you object to gay bars?

Gay bars are not the same though. If you don't want to go to a gay bar then you don't, you don't spend money in it and no-one cares. This is an international event that will require an amount of public expenditure to support it. There is no opt-out for the tax payer.

Would you be happy to see tax money spent on, for example, a sporting event for people between 170 and 180cm in height? Or, would you see people of that height as quite normal and, therefore, don't require their own games?

Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
> http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/08/23/openly-gay-olympians-won-six-times-as-many-golds-as-t...
>
> They sure did as the link shows. Percentage wise gay athletes were much better than heterosexual athletes at the Olympics, so why hold their own games?

Because it's illegal with imprisonment or death as the consequence of being found out in a lot of countries still?

Try looking into the 'corrective rape' which lesbains can suffer once thier sexuality is known, or into where you can be put to death for being different sexually, or are likely to be beaten up or lynched by groups.

Gay people can have hell to pay in Jamaica for example. The Gay Games are just a way of saying that it's actually fine to be different, and saying it explicitly so.
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
> To pretend people are already treated equally, denies the need for change, and in turn supports the implicitly racist, sexist and homophobic status quo in many areas of society.

I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point to play devil's advocate.

I am not pretending people are treated equally but that is the solution. I am arguing that we don't need gay games or disability quotas to force us into that solution because it doesn't work.

Supporting a gay games is also not treating people equally but from the other side of the argument.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]

> There are two ways that a gay games will be interpreted by the population; the more liberal 'hey we're different and that's ok', or another saying 'hey we're different and, therefore, deserve special treatment'.

It's a sorry indictment of people's attitudes when something done to promote a valid idea (that gay people are capable of something other than being ridiculed or being successful as an obnoxious, irritating chat-show host) is sneered at as 'deserving special treatment'. But you're absolutely right to predict that that's how it will be perceived by many.

> ...I don't think that is a healthy way to solve the issue of inequality.

Valid point I think. I think the approach has the exact pitfalls you point out.

>
> As an aside, I object to being called sexist, racist and homophobic because I said that I people should be treated equally. That isn't debate and it cheapens the issue.

Absolutely. There is a world of difference between your "equality means equality" standpoint (which I don't really agree with, but nor do I think the gay games is a great idea) and homophobia etc.
thin bob on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
> http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/08/23/openly-gay-olympians-won-six-times-as-many-golds-as-t...
>
> They sure did as the link shows. Percentage wise gay athletes were much better than heterosexual athletes at the Olympics, so why hold their own games?

I'd not realised that. Perhaps, then, the games are worth it. like someone said above, 'role models' are useful in confounding sterotypes and if it. The more openly gay sportstars, politicians, tories, anglers, librarians, F1 drivers.... the better.
Perhaps then, people's sexuality will become less relevant or 'newsworthy'.
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> Gay bars are not the same though. If you don't want to go to a gay bar then you don't, you don't spend money in it and no-one cares. This is an international event that will require an amount of public expenditure to support it. There is no opt-out for the tax payer.
>

You obiously know the details of how this event is funded and it's overall benefit to the economy so I can't argue with that......

or do you?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:It's not exclusively for gay and lesbian people though, which makes it seem less like special treatment to me, and more a recognition of a difference which is irrationally marginalised through prejudice and descrimination.

The Gay Games isn't forcing people to do anything, in the way that positive descrimination can do, it's just saying that this particular difference is okay.

I guess taxpayers are being forced to pay for it, that's the only thing with an obligation attached to it, should they happen in London.

Even then, there's no knowing whether we'll be at a loss or not after paying for it, or if the economy might benefit, from the 'pink pound' perhaps, as well as pounds of other kinds.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
> [...]
> Do you object to gay bars?

Certainly not what has that got to do with anything? Gay people are a minority and yes have faced oppression over the years but is that a reason for taxpayers to pay into their games. Yes your right I don't know how it will be funded but one thing is for sure that some of it will come from taxpayers money.

Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> Gay bars are not the same though. If you don't want to go to a gay bar then you don't, you don't spend money in it and no-one cares. This is an international event that will require an amount of public expenditure to support it. There is no opt-out for the tax payer.

The way I see it, when public money has been spent on hanging gay people in the past, a few bob for a sporting event is not unreasonable.

> Would you be happy to see tax money spent on, for example, a sporting event for people between 170 and 180cm in height? Or, would you see people of that height as quite normal and, therefore, don't require their own games?

I've made the point about the purpose of the gay games not being that "gay people require their own games" at least twice. A minority that gets a rough deal is a minority that gets a rough deal and there is no parallel between that and people who are already treated equally.

Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli: I think your problem is that your arguing that the desired endpoint is the solution to the current problem. I'm sure you aren't openly racist, its just that you don't seem to want to offer any solution to the current homophobia, sexism etc. in society save for wouldn't it be great if everyone just got along and respected each other. This is the desired endpoint not a viable way of getting there.

Many institutions are dominated by white, straight men. Take the example of women in the house of commons, a recent report said that a girl born today will be at pensionable age before there is equality between men and women. Why should bright politically aware women wait for such sclerotic change to take place? Why should a gay footballer wait indefinitely for attitudes to change? People are unequal, something needs to be done about it, this will mean unequal treatment.

Supporting a gay games is not treating people unequally. Some people want a gay games open to all, some highlanders want a highland games open to all. I hardly see either of these are unequal, merely supporting enthusiasm.
subalpine - on 14 Jan 2013
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> Certainly not what has that got to do with anything? Gay people are a minority and yes have faced oppression over the years but is that a reason for taxpayers to pay into their games.

Hetro people can compete in them as well don't forget, and gay people around the world are STILL facing descrimination, and...DEATH.

>Yes your right I don't know how it will be funded but one thing is for sure that some of it will come from taxpayers money.

I agree, and believe it's a good thing to spend it on.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: I think its become fashionable lately to see view all public spending as taxpayers money. This is of course a fact. But the associated rhetoric that we as taxpayers must approve or directly benefit from all spending is rather missing the point. Anyway its David Cameron, our elected representative (sort of) spending the money on the gays (if there is any money, as opposed to just allowing buildings to be used?).
Mike Stretford - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> Yes your right I don't know how it will be funded but one thing is for sure that some of it will come from taxpayers money.

It says here it is almost 100% privately funded (bit of a contradiction I know).

http://gaygames.org/wp/mission-and-values/gay-games-scholarships-change-the-world/

If there is any public money spent I would have thought it would be recouped through increased economic activity.

I really can't see what you are getting your knickers in a twist about. Large cities are always trying to attract events and this will be no different.

Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> ...but one thing is for sure that some of it will come from taxpayers money.

So let's pretend you've understood the purpose of the gay games, i.e. that it's an attempt to help address a social problem (the negative perception of gays). Governments generally spend public money to help address social problems.

Is your objection to spending public money on that based on the argument that

- it won't work, so it's a waste of money
- the problem doesn't exist (either because gays are treated fine, or because they're not treated fine, but that's fine by you)
- the problem does exist, but it's not worthy use of the taxpayer's pound?

And would you feel the same if you had a gay son or daughter?
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Fickalli) I'm sure you aren't openly racist, its just that you don't seem to want to offer any solution to the current homophobia, sexism etc. in society save for wouldn't it be great if everyone just got along and respected each other. This is the desired endpoint not a viable way of getting there.

That isn't what we're debating. We're talking about whether a gay games is necessary and, by extension, whether it will help reduce inequality between hetero and homosexuals. There are plenty of ideas to prevent racism, sexism and, indeed, homophobia - I don't think having a gay games is a particularly good one. Allowing same-sex marriage, for example, would make much greater inroads.
>
> Take the example of women in the house of commons, a recent report said that a girl born today will be at pensionable age before there is equality between men and women.

This argument is often trotted out but it is fairly meaningless without background to the data. Do as many women as men want to be in the house of commons or is the ratio in the house broadly similar to the ratio of applicants to be considered as MPs? Are the better candidates male? I don't know the answer but equality doesn't necessarily mean parity across the board. Some professions appeal more to men, others to women and there is nothing wrong with that.



GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

>
> Hetro people can compete in them as well don't forget, and gay people around the world are STILL facing descrimination, and...DEATH.

How is a gay games in the UK going to help them ? its not going to be televised in those countries and I'd be surprised if a significant number of athletes turned up from there either.
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)

In answer to your very patronising post (are you a primary school teacher by chance?)
> [...]
>
> So let's pretend you've understood the purpose of the gay games, i.e. that it's an attempt to help address a social problem (the negative perception of gays). Governments generally spend public money to help address social problems.
>
> Is your objection to spending public money on that based on the argument that
>
> - it won't work, so it's a waste of money
> - the problem doesn't exist (either because gays are treated fine, or because they're not treated fine, but that's fine by you)
> - the problem does exist, but it's not worthy use of the taxpayer's >pound?

You missed an option - there are better more worth while things to spend the money on, hospitals, schools, etc etc
>
> And would you feel the same if you had a gay son or daughter?

For sure, if they were athletically driven then I'd encourage them to do what so many successful gay people did at London 2012 and strive for the Olympics.

earlsdonwhu - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
. "There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games".

This sounds brilliant... so I may get to compete in the Olympic stadium after all. Look out for me being lapped in the 800m!
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)

> You missed an option - there are better more worth while things to spend the money on, hospitals, schools, etc etc
> [...]

That's the "not worthy..." option. Do you honestly think public services are going to suffer for hosting this? I think that the 'waste of public money' tack is disingenuous since it sets up the idea that we either save lives in a hospital or host this event, which isn't how it works. We don't know how the funding works, we don't know if it will be a net spend or net gain economically, and overwhelming chance is that either way it won't be significant. Seems like a very weak reason to oppose the event.

> For sure, if they were athletically driven then I'd encourage them to do what so many successful gay people did at London 2012 and strive for the Olympics.

Fair enough - to put the question differently, if you had a gay son or daughter would you worry about the way gay people were represented and perceived? Would you support or oppose initiatives to try to change perceptions?
The New NickB - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> For sure, if they were athletically driven then I'd encourage them to do what so many successful gay people did at London 2012 and strive for the Olympics.

I assume you are giving up climbing, you're not going to get to the Olympics!
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
>
> Fair enough - to put the question differently, if you had a gay son or daughter would you worry about the way gay people were represented and perceived? Would you support or oppose initiatives to try to change perceptions?

I wouldn't worry too much about how gay people are perceived in this age to be honest. I spent most my life in Todmorden, the next town down the valley where I used to socialise a lot is Hebden Bridge which has a very large lesbian and gay population. The lesbian and gay community there have helped to shape that town and I don't believe they worry that much on how they're perceived. Some of my friends there are gay, some are lesbian, my eldest daughter's uncle is gay and a very good friend of mine, he's never mentioned once about the way he is perceived.

If perceptions needed to be changed then I would never be in opposition of that or of any other group in society. Do gays and lesbians need there own games my opinion is why, would I oppose it no, would I agree with tax payers money helping to fund it no.

Everyone is allowed an opinion that is mine.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli: It seems to me your quite happy with the unequal status quo. You have no desire for change and no ideas of how to bring about change. House of commons is a good example because it should be self evident that those who govern us are a good representation of the rest of society. 4 of the 22 available positions in the latest reshuffle were taken by women.

In answer to you point a patriacal society will probably lead to men who are more keen to rule, but it doesn't mean its right. Women may find the male dominated HoPs unattractive due to the male dominate culture it creates, it is then necessary to force change here so they do not have to put up with it, and face the same obstacles not more more than prospective male MPs.

While I admit setting quotas would be ludicrous in every line of work, I feel we should have a HoP which approximately matches the population so the voices of oppressed minorities can be heard and action taken, to right past wrongs and the present injustices they a wrought.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Regardless of your point this is a lousy argument.

My mates never talked to me about how he's perceived as a gay man? so what?

That my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Yeah well it doesn't stop it being rooted in anecdotal evidence interpreted with dubious logic, therefore making it somewhat open to question.

Yes Hebden has a lot of gays but how could you possibly know whether they worry about how they are perceived?
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Fickalli) It seems to me your quite happy with the unequal status quo. You have no desire for change and no ideas of how to bring about change.

We are once again in strawman territory.

>House of commons is a good example because it should be self evident that those who govern us are a good representation of the rest of society. 4 of the 22 available positions in the latest reshuffle were taken by women.
>
But, again, this data is meaningless without context. In my previous post I asked whether equal numbers of women and men wanted to be MPs (the same applies to cabinet posts). If the answer is that more men than women wanted to be MPs then there won't be an even split in the commons. Forcing a 50:50 split doesn't solve anything. I agree that women shouldn't face more obstacles but neither should they face less. They should face the same and the best candidate should be given the chance to run. Should candidacy be decided by an all male panel who rose to the top in the 70s and 80s when the ideology was different? No it should not.

>
> While I admit setting quotas would be ludicrous in every line of work, I feel we should have a HoP which approximately matches the population so the voices of oppressed minorities can be heard and action taken, to right past wrongs and the present injustices they a wrought.

The point of elected officials is that they represent the opinion of the electorate. They don't have to be part of the minority group to do that. Much better would be to have the very brightest and best candidates selected for the job who can fight the corner for all their constituents whilst seeing the bigger picture. You don't have to be a woman to believe in equal rights for women in the work place. The alternative, with a broad span of people all defending their little empires, is almost universally less efficient and worsens the situation for everyone (eg. the defence staff).
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about how gay people are perceived in this age to be honest.

I'd like to see what a survey of attitudes of teenage lads in your average white working class area looked like before I start getting too relaxed about everything being alright.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about how gay people are perceived in this age to be honest. I spent most my life in Todmorden, the next town down the valley where I used to socialise a lot is Hebden Bridge which has a very large lesbian and gay population. The lesbian and gay community there have helped to shape that town and I don't believe they worry that much on how they're perceived. Some of my friends there are gay, some are lesbian, my eldest daughter's uncle is gay and a very good friend of mine, he's never mentioned once about the way he is perceived.

Just based on your own experiences you don't think things need changing or can change for the better?

So that's alright then, everything's cool...


Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> We are once again in strawman territory.

Come off it, its a fair assesment of your position.

>Should candidacy be decided by an all male panel who rose to the top in the 70s and 80s when the ideology was different? No it should not.

The rest of your points are rather silly, but this is interesting. Your right candidacy shouldn't be decided this way more radical change is needed, yet I don't see you arguing for it? In which case your simply arguing my idea doesn't go far enough in order to shoot it down but not suggesting any changes yourself.

You said something about best and brightest. I've not got time to get into a massive long discussion about this but put concisely this is decided by the status quo (parties select candidates and together with the media determine the trajectory of their career) and 'best and brightest' has many different interpretations.

In short I'd rather have more women, more working class and more ethnic minorities in the HoC put there by the current lot, rather than the same cabal picking the 'best and brightest'. At least with the former some of the new intake may have the opportunity to challenge the dull, narrowly drawn status quo and the interests they serve.
Ian Black - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Can't be arsed (no pun intended) reading all the posts but surely "I'm the only gay in the village", wouldn't be a phrase you would hear! I'm sure the fudge packing event would be a close run thing...
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
>
> Yes Hebden has a lot of gays but how could you possibly know whether they worry about how they are perceived?

Sorry, I never said I did. I said I don't believe they worry. My own personal experience was that they come across as being very comfortable in that community.

Lukem6 - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: OHH GOSH!, Whatevvvverr Next. Well I tell you what honey, if they think they need it, let them have it. I could understand trans-gender games. At least they have a good reason, Not being specifically male or female in the eyes of the Olympic committee.

Personally they could go for racial groupings on games, it wouldn't matter unless they could win gold and have a response to the BIG Question

"But what have you done on Grit?"
Edradour - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> We are once again in strawman territory.

Come off it, its a fair assesment of your position.

No. I have argued that I don't think a gay games or any other event to remind people of a groups 'difference' is the way to solve inequality.

You have appropriated this to say that I accept the status quo, don't want change and have no ideas to affect change.

It is a complete misrepresentation of my position.
JdotP - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

As others (notably Jon Stewart) have pointed out, the argument that a "gay games" is some way wrong due to discriminating against heterosexual people is a false one. Sure, technically having a sporting event that is only open to, or marketed specifically to, gay people, is discrimination but is it really the kind of discrimination we need to be worried about?

We need to be worried when, as a result of discrimination, a certain group of people are denied employment or other opportunities in life. It is hard to see how the "gay games" is going to result in heterosexual people being denied the opportunity to participate in sport.

As for the expenditure of public money, I personally agree that spending significant sums of public money on the event would be inappropriate, but so far as I can see all that is happening is that the Government is working to attract this event to the UK, just as it would for any other sporting event which brings in a significant audience and significant sums of money to the UK. I really don't see the problem with that.

The final issue is - what is the point of a "gay games"? Personally I believe that, in this day and age in the UK, there is no point. I think that, to understand why such events take place, you need to look back to the 1960s - 1980s. When homophobia was rife, there was a pressing need for events such as Gay Pride, Gay Games, or whatever, to challenge homophobia and change people's attitudes. Nowadays, with the possible exceptions of the world of football and certain religious groups, it is very rare to meet people in the UK who are actually homophobic, and if you do it is generally their problem rather than yours.

So why do we still have events such as the "Gay Games"? I think the conclusion has to be that the gay community is stuck in the 1970s and needs to move on a bit. Since I'm gay myself I'm allowed to say that :)
Steve Perry - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to JdotP: All of that is sense.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Fickalli:

> No. I have argued that I don't think a gay games or any other event to remind people of a groups 'difference' is the way to solve inequality.

You've said alot more than that, have you seen how much you've posted? ANyway since you've nothing more to add that'll be settled then.

Tyler - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'd like to see what a survey of attitudes of teenage lads in your average white working class area looked like before I start getting too relaxed about everything being alright.

Probably pretty similar to their attitudes towards anyone who wasn't a working class lad in their immediate group of friends. What I'm saying is that picking on a single, narrowly defined, disenfranchised group as representative of the entire UK *and its institutions* is going to skew things. More pertinently to a gay person wanting to get on is what is the media, local govt, govt, police, health service, education system, judiciary etc attitude towards them.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tyler:

The reason I gave that example was that that's the environment a lot of gay kids grow up in. Looking back at my own experiences, where I see gays as having a rough time in society is growing up feeling like shit about themselves as everyone around them sees gays as something to laugh at.

Not an example from a working class lad, but here's a first person perspctive of growing up gay today, not 30 years ago:

http://pocket.co/sGaWL

I think that that in terms of law and how state institutions behave, things are basically OK and that is extremely important to how gay people's lives pan out. But I think that it is extremely pertinent how kids discovering they're gay perceive that. Do they think, "I wish I was someone else" or are they in an environment where they have as much chance of developing normal levels of self-confidence as anyone else - rather than having a massively increased chance of depression and suicide?
Goucho on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Does this mean we might get to see if Peter Tatchell is good at something!
Goucho on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Steve Perry) A lot of people seem to be missing the point on this. Society is not equal, people do not have equal opportunities, gay people still face disproportionate discrimination as do many other groups in society. Even if in legislature people are equal, this often doesn't bear out in reality due to dominant cultures persisting in the workplace/sport etc. If a gay games encourages more openly gay people into sport, makes them more comfortable taking part, then surely this is a good way of addressing centuries of injustice?

What on earth has someone's sexuality got to do with their sporting ability for goodness sake!!!!

Why can't you just be an 'athlete' instead of a 'gay' or 'straight' athlete FFS!


Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:It strikes me that things like homophobia and racism and sexism are constants in society which need to be kept in check, and possibly won't be eradicated at some point in the future, that the way these things manifest themselves can change, but that's all pretty much, they probably won't be solved as problems I think. I'd like to be wrong.
The New NickB - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:

Are you just a climber? So people like to mix more than one thing in their life that is important to them.

There are gay climbing clubs and gay running clubs, why? I guess there are two main reasons. They experience discrimination from mainstream cubs in some cases and maybe they enjoy spending time with people of the same sexuality, you know like lots of heterosexuals do!
thin bob on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> What on earth has someone's sexuality got to do with their sporting ability for goodness sake!!!!
>
> Why can't you just be an 'athlete' instead of a 'gay' or 'straight' athlete FFS!

I fully agree.
Unfortunately, we only have to look at the football league to see that there is still a long way to go in some areas.
Goucho on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to The New NickB: Maybe that's because a lot of gay people are always defining themselves purely by their sexuality, instead of what they are as a person?

If you are defined purely by your sexuality, then in doesn't really say a great deal about you as a person does it? - are heterosexual people defined purely by there sexuality? - I think not.

And before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, I have no issues or prejudices whatsoever regarding peoples sexual orientation, and I have good friends who are gay, however the fact they are gay, is completely irrelevant to both them and me, regarding our relationship.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:

> If you are defined purely by your sexuality, then in doesn't really say a great deal about you as a person does it? - are heterosexual people defined purely by there sexuality? - I think not.

I agree that a lot of gay people define themselves like this, and that I think it's unhealthy. But I'd also point out that the reason most heterosexual people don't (and some do - think about the boisterous lad who never shuts up about how many fit burds he's been banging or the make-up-plastered binty girl wearing pretty much f^ck-all on a freezing cold saturday night) is that they haven't been isolated and forced to consider themselves as different because of their sexuality.
confusicating on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:

Another reason that folk will go to gay climbing clubs, gay bars, etc is because they will feel safe in those areas. It may not be apparent to you (or it may, I don't know) but the world is so incredibly hetronormative all the time. This gets wearing, it really does - all this pressure to be straight. It is changing, but slowly. Many people will always feel on edge going about day to day business 'just in case' someone has a go at them.

So it is easy to see why they would take a few hours out of that to go to a place in which no-one assumes things about them or judges them for being different, and there is no risk of abuse for their sexuality or gender. I really didn't think that this was the case at all until I went along to the LGBT society at my uni. Before going I was all 'why would I have anything in common with these people, just because we happen to be gay/bi/trans/whatever?'. I really didn't think I'd go, or that I had any reason to. But when I went I realised its important virtually straight away. It was like a weight had been taken off my shoulders, I felt happy and safe. I can imagine that is the same for a whole range of groups (for example girl-only outdoor pursuit events for female school kids who would be scared to do things if there were boys around). So it is irrelevant to you, but to others it may not be.

I do not define myself by my sexuality at all, in fact I don't even know what my sexuality is - it doesn't matter to me. But you must be able to see that people who are part of a group that has been persecuted in the past may come on a bit strong about that aspect of their personality. Just to be sure, just in case. And to be defiant. And in areas where it is a big deal and people are told every day that what they are is 'wrong' etc (as some people are) you can see why they'd be upfront about it.
The New NickB - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to The New NickB) Maybe that's because a lot of gay people are always defining themselves purely by their sexuality, instead of what they are as a person?
>
> If you are defined purely by your sexuality, then in doesn't really say a great deal about you as a person does it? - are heterosexual people defined purely by there sexuality? - I think not.
>
I have met plenty of people that seem to be, I agree it isn't the most positive of traits, but it is more understandable in gay people!

> And before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, I have no issues or prejudices
whatsoever regarding peoples sexual orientation, and I have good friends who are gay, however the fact they are gay, is completely irrelevant to both them and me, regarding our relationship.

Equally I have friends that are gay, this makes no difference to me either, but based on what I see and what they tell me, this is far from universal. Homosexual bigotry is particularly common in sport.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jonny2vests - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to lost1977:
> (In reply to Muel)
>
> but surely isnt this discrimination

Discrimination is normally when a majority or an authority discriminates against a minority. I'm not sure it works the other way round.
Richard Carter - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

How would it work? For example if I was an athlete, what if I pretended to be gay so I could enter? Would I risk disqualification I was found out? What about people who are bisexual, are they allowed in?

I don't mind there being a 'gay games' just so long as they promise not to make as complicated as the paralympic games with their 84 and a half trillion types of classification.
confusicating on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Richard Carter and everyone else:

Really, a quick google provided answers.

http://gaygames.org/wp/mission-and-values/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-on-the-gay-games-and-lgbt-...

"But the Gay Games are themselves “straight games”. Everyone is welcome, whatever their sexual orientation. It is estimated that about 10% of participants in each edition of the Gay Games are straight, often friends and family members of LGBT participants who participate to show their support and solidarity."
Richard Carter - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:

Fair enough then!
ice.solo - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

I dont know why gay people should have their own games. But i like the fact that they do.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Richard Carter:
> (In reply to Steve Perry)
>
> I don't mind there being a 'gay games' just so long as they promise not to make as complicated as the paralympic games with their 84 and a half trillion types of classification.

Just wait until a transexual tries to run in a lesbian race and the paralympic classification system is going to look like a model of clarity.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.