Thierry Henry Backs Players Coming Out As Gay

First topic message reminder :



Arsenal legend Thierry Henry says it should be "OK by now" for gay footballers to feel comfortable being open about their sexuality.

Speaking on Sky News, Henry said: "We’re living in a different time, a different world, and people should accept that."

Professional athletes have long been hesitant about coming out as gay, partly because of concerns about how fans and sponsors would react.  But an increasing number of sports stars - including English rugby union player Sam Stanley - have decided to go public.

Henry, who is a Sky Academy ambassador, said he would have no problems playing alongside a team who was gay.

"It’s not a problem, we’re ultimately there to do a job. Whatever you believe in, whatever you do," he said. "If I was in a dressing room, that guy would still have been my teammate and I would still give him the ball, and I would still see him the same way, still go out with him. We're all human beings at the end of the day, so it doesn't really bother me."

The former France and Arsenal star is supporting the Sky Academy Confidence Month, which aims to help young people boost their confidence and fulfil their potential.

http://news.sky.com/story/1577129/thierry-henry-backs-players-coming-out-as-gay

Well said

Is that why Muslim women wear them...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Is that why Muslim women wear them...?

They certainly wouldn't want to be eyed up by you.

Tommy Monk wrote:Is that why Muslim women wear them...?

the honest answer is YES

I don't think anyone pretends that a lot of the Arabic Muslim nations are very lacking in women rights.
and there is definitely a degree in which culturally that is the reason, even the bible says that women must cover their hair or risk being raped by angels (that is were Islam gets it from too, an old testament story)

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Again this is a non issue. No one is seriously even questioning this. Nor is there reason to. They aren't going to have 4 separate changing rooms for gay, straight men and women when gay people constitute a small % of the population.

They are confusing where a seperation was needed where women were being harressed.
You cannot stop people peering at you in the street or outside the changing room then once using the facility.
Hence why both these clowns are complete idiots, but I expect nothing less from prejudiced muppets

The leering argument is a non-argument, you just have to humour these idiots.

I see you're getting hysterical again.

You've made an assertion that we have gender segregated bathrooms because women feared or were being abused by men.

What historical evidence do you have for this? Let's see what you have to make such a bold claim.

You don't even have an open mind to think that separate facilities were need because both genders may have different toiletry and bathing needs. Here's a hint: why do you think they don't stock tampons in the men's changing room? You clearly need one, so I suggest you sneak in to the ladies and get one.

And what about children using the same facilities where there may be a paedophile? Where does it stop?

You either have one changing room for all and a room for every demographic.



https://youtu.be/nLzZbo-RGf8

We had common changing rooms at uni. Nobody was abused or harassed.

They had common changing rooms in White City swimming pool - nobody was hurt.

As the video above says, they have common changing rooms in some gyms.

It is people who have been brainwashed and insecure into thinking the worse will happen. Another attempt by the psuedo-intellectual liberals to demonise men.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Leering at someone sexually is sexual harassment...


Going into public toilets used to be an uncomfortable experience sometimes when there was an odd homosexual or two hanging about in there trying to get a peek at your Dick when you were having a piss...


The homosexuals hanging about in them was the main reason why most have closed.


Why is it so accepted that a woman can feel uncomfortable by a man leering at her, and she has the right to not have to be subjected to this, but a man is wrong to feel uncomfortable by another man leering at him and has no right to not be subjected to this...!?

Would a gay man be exempt from sexual harassment laws? Of course not.

Then why have gender separated rooms at all?

the current push here is unisex bathrooms with individual stalls and showers, keeps everyone happy and everyone safe.

Sounds reasonable veya, tommy however has been incapable of explain what he actually wants to happen. Just bitching and moaning about homosexuals, as he does.

yes I have noticed he is very good at bitching and moaning about things.


personally i like the current system, unisex toilets sort of suck as chicks use ALL The stall constantly  and lines are huge and the urinals cant be as open and efficient.. the main places i have seen/used them is music festivals... particularly rural based ones.
Quite frankly if the 'chance a gay man sees my dick' means i don't have to line up for 10 minutes i am OK with that..
the other part is closeted gay men are still in the straigth locker rooms anyway so Tommy will never escape their longing glances 

Haha, exactly. He hasn't really thought about his main point here at all. But then you know, tommy and thinking....

   remember over time attitudes change

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


They are confusing where a seperation was needed where women were being harressed.
You cannot stop people peering at you in the street or outside the changing room then once using the facility.
Hence why both these clowns are complete idiots, but I expect nothing less from prejudiced muppets

The leering argument is a non-argument, you just have to humour these idiots.

I see you're getting hysterical again.

You've made an assertion that we have gender segregated bathrooms because women feared or were being abused by men.

What historical evidence do you have for this? Let's see what you have to make such a bold claim.

You don't even have an open mind to think that separate facilities were need because both genders may have different toiletry and bathing needs. Here's a hint: why do you think they don't stock tampons in the men's changing room? You clearly need one, so I suggest you sneak in to the ladies and get one.

And what about children using the same facilities where there may be a paedophile? Where does it stop?

You either have one changing room for all and a room for every demographic.



https://youtu.be/nLzZbo-RGf8

Ha ha more stupidity from the backward Muslim

Again therew has been a history not just in facilities but on trains for exmaple or did you miss all the debate that was had on this?

That means there has been a history for a very long time where women have been harressed where for men there has not been so much of a problem.

So clearly where there has been problems.

Again my view is tough shit if you have the issue it is one created by the individual and prejudice is not a reason to segregate people hence why once there used to be racial segregation.
There is no grounds for prejudice segregation, which is what you and the other homophobe were stating

So please spare me your emotive nonsense as you have not got the first clue

So you can accomadate as already male and female in places like swimming pools to change or have uni one.

At the end of the day the backward prejudice views you were basing a view on are your own creation, thus your own issue, but I expect nothing less from someone who is a sheep and cannot think for himself.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I see you're getting hysterical again.

You've made an assertion that we have gender segregated bathrooms because women feared or were being abused by men.

What historical evidence do you have for this? Let's see what you have to make such a bold claim.

You don't even have an open mind to think that separate facilities were need because both genders may have different toiletry and bathing needs. Here's a hint: why do you think they don't stock tampons in the men's changing room? You clearly need one, so I suggest you sneak in to the ladies and get one.

And what about children using the same facilities where there may be a paedophile? Where does it stop?

You either have one changing room for all and a room for every demographic.



https://youtu.be/nLzZbo-RGf8

Ha ha more stupidity from the backward Muslim

Again therew has been a history not just in facilities but on trains for exmaple or did you miss all the debate that was had on this?

That means there has been a history for a very long time where women have been harressed where for men there has not been so much of a problem.

So clearly where there has been problems.

Again my view is tough shit if you have the issue it is one created by the individual and prejudice is not a reason to segregate people hence why once there used to be racial segregation.
There is no grounds for prejudice segregation, which is what you and the other homophobe were stating

So please spare me your emotive nonsense as you have not got the first clue

So you can accomadate as already male and female in places like swimming pools to change or have uni one.

At the end of the day the backward prejudice views you were basing a view on are your own creation, thus your own issue, but I expect nothing less from someone who is a sheep and cannot think for himself.

Backward Muslim? The only true bigot around here is you.

I want others to note, I have not even insulted you once since your return.

So you can provide ZERO Evidence of any historical record of women being harassed in mixed changing rooms before the laws were changed.

Once again I've caught you with your pants down in a lie and your only recourse is insult and abuse. HA HA!

And then pathetically you try to widen the goal posts by trying to include abuse on public transport. What the fuck has that got to do with the thread?

It is clear that the likes of you, Les and others have lost this argument.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ha ha more stupidity from the backward Muslim

Again therew has been a history not just in facilities but on trains for exmaple or did you miss all the debate that was had on this?

That means there has been a history for a very long time where women have been harressed where for men there has not been so much of a problem.

So clearly where there has been problems.

Again my view is tough shit if you have the issue it is one created by the individual and prejudice is not a reason to segregate people hence why once there used to be racial segregation.
There is no grounds for prejudice segregation, which is what you and the other homophobe were stating

So please spare me your emotive nonsense as you have not got the first clue

So you can accomadate as already male and female in places like swimming pools to change or have uni one.

At the end of the day the backward prejudice views you were basing a view on are your own creation, thus your own issue, but I expect nothing less from someone who is a sheep and cannot think for himself.

Backward Muslim? The only true bigot around here is you.

I want others to note, I have not even insulted you once since your return.

So you can provide ZERO Evidence of any historical record of women being harassed in mixed changing rooms before the laws were changed.

Once again I've caught you with your pants down in a lie and your only recourse is insult and abuse. HA HA!

And then pathetically you try to widen the goal posts by trying to include abuse on public transport. What the fuck has that got to do with the thread?

It is clear that the likes of you, Les and others have lost this argument.

1) Nothing bigoted when stating the facts. You blindly follow the views of a schizophrenic minor Warlord, whos ethics and morals and so baclward its beyond belief, where again he clearly had no comprehension of love

2) Who gives a fuck if you have not insulted me, I make no such reservations, mainly as you are a twat.

3) Errr wrong, all I have to show is historical evidence, which has been done by as I stated the thread on trains.
Also here you go dumbo
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed

4) Nobody has lost any argument, you and the other simpleton are promoting a view of intimidation based off your own prejudice. That is just absurd, when women have been harressed is far removed from your feeble mind set where you think a man that may leer at you is in someway wrong.

So again your line of thinking would mean segregation for any view ofd intimidation, which would mean racial etc. Again there is no such justification for intimidation based on prejudice views. Mainly as its bollocks and you know it is, but because you have a limited ability to think for yourself, mainly as you are a sheep, I am nopt surpirsed

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Backward Muslim? The only true bigot around here is you.

I want others to note, I have not even insulted you once since your return.

So you can provide ZERO Evidence of any historical record of women being harassed in mixed changing rooms before the laws were changed.

Once again I've caught you with your pants down in a lie and your only recourse is insult and abuse. HA HA!

And then pathetically you try to widen the goal posts by trying to include abuse on public transport. What the fuck has that got to do with the thread?

It is clear that the likes of you, Les and others have lost this argument.

1) Nothing bigoted when stating the facts. You blindly follow the views of a schizophrenic minor Warlord, whos ethics and morals and so baclward its beyond belief, where again he clearly had no comprehension of love

2) Who gives a fuck if you have not insulted me, I make no such reservations, mainly as you are a twat.

3) Errr wrong, all I have to show is historical evidence, which has been done by as I stated the thread on trains.
Also here you go dumbo
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed

4) Nobody has lost any argument, you and the other simpleton are promoting a view of intimidation based off your own prejudice. That is just absurd, when women have been harressed is far removed from your feeble mind set where you think a man that may leer at you is in someway wrong.

So again your line of thinking would mean segregation for any view ofd intimidation, which would mean racial etc. Again there is no such justification for intimidation based on prejudice views. Mainly as its bollocks and you know it is, but because you have a limited ability to think for yourself, mainly as you are a sheep, I am nopt surpirsed

So your historical evidence of abuse in mixed locker rooms is "abuse on trains".

HA HA!

Are trains locker rooms? Do you get undressed on a train?

You've been busted in a fallacy and your only option is to insult and lose your temper. Let me know when you calm down.

Ps:'I'd love to see you speak that way to Sexy Mama and call her a "backward Muslim".

Of course we all know you're a kiss-ass and want to preserve a relationship with your only Muslim friend in the world. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Nothing bigoted when stating the facts. You blindly follow the views of a schizophrenic minor Warlord, whos ethics and morals and so baclward its beyond belief, where again he clearly had no comprehension of love

2) Who gives a fuck if you have not insulted me, I make no such reservations, mainly as you are a twat.

3) Errr wrong, all I have to show is historical evidence, which has been done by as I stated the thread on trains.
Also here you go dumbo
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed

4) Nobody has lost any argument, you and the other simpleton are promoting a view of intimidation based off your own prejudice. That is just absurd, when women have been harressed is far removed from your feeble mind set where you think a man that may leer at you is in someway wrong.

So again your line of thinking would mean segregation for any view ofd intimidation, which would mean racial etc. Again there is no such justification for intimidation based on prejudice views. Mainly as its bollocks and you know it is, but because you have a limited ability to think for yourself, mainly as you are a sheep, I am nopt surpirsed

So your historical evidence of abuse in mixed locker rooms is "abuse on trains".

HA HA!

Are trains locker rooms? Do you get undressed on a train?

You've been busted in a fallacy and your only option is to insult and lose your temper. Let me know when you calm down.

Public places, which is a big group which includes many places.

Which you cannot refute but cointinue to spout even more bullshit, but then you are a complete simpleton.

So nothing busted as this is about public places of which swimming pools are Public places


Doh

As ro being calm, you are justy making me laugh you twat.

The fact is being the prejudice little runt that you are, you know youj have no argument based off prejudice and think now public places is only limited to the trains.

You really are a thick c u n t ha ha

Now either debate the points, or crawl away you pathetic waste of space

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Ps:'I'd love to see you speak that way to Sexy Mama and call her a "backward Muslim".

Of course we all know you're a kiss-ass and want to preserve a relationship with your only Muslim friend in the world. Lol!

lol, how little you know me.

With sexy, i can talk to her as a human being, in your case, you are just a complete fuckwit, hence there is little point in showing you any decency, because you are a first rate prick.

Now do you understand and this was all your own making, so get used to and enjoy

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So your historical evidence of abuse in mixed locker rooms is "abuse on trains".

HA HA!

Are trains locker rooms? Do you get undressed on a train?

You've been busted in a fallacy and your only option is to insult and lose your temper. Let me know when you calm down.

Public places, which is a big group which includes many places.

Which you cannot refute but cointinue to spout even more bullshit, but then you are a complete simpleton.

So nothing busted as this is about public places of which swimming pools are Public places


Doh

As ro being calm, you are justy making me laugh you twat.

The fact is being the prejudice little runt that you are, you know youj have no argument based off prejudice and think now public places is only limited to the trains.

You really are a thick c u n t ha ha

Now either debate the points, or crawl away you pathetic waste of space

Dude - you cannot spout such verbal abuse and claim you are calm and rational. Lol! Nobody is buying that.

You claimed there was historical evidence of women being abused in mixed locker rooms and so gender separation was required.

I then asked you for that evidence, as you claim to be a history buff.

You failed. You tried to widen the goal post to public transport. You failed again. Then you got angry. And now you are abusive.

And how am I prejudice - I'm for MIXED CHANGING ROOMS - HA HA!

How do I know who's gay in a locker room? I don't, which means I have no reason to give a fuck. Perhaps in your hysteria and anger, you missed that bit above.

See the video I posted - in the era of LGBTTXXX, the only thing that makes sense is unisex locker rooms. D'UH!

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Ps:'I'd love to see you speak that way to Sexy Mama and call her a "backward Muslim".

Of course we all know you're a kiss-ass and want to preserve a relationship with your only Muslim friend in the world. Lol!

lol, how little you know me.

With sexy, i can talk to her as a human being, in your case, you are just a complete fuckwit, hence there is little point in showing you any decency, because you are a first rate prick.

Now do you understand and this was all your own making, so get used to and enjoy

This was all my own making? Thank you for finally admitting I have total emotional control over you.

Feel free to hold a grudge and wallow in your negativity. That's not my style.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Public places, which is a big group which includes many places.

Which you cannot refute but cointinue to spout even more bullshit, but then you are a complete simpleton.

So nothing busted as this is about public places of which swimming pools are Public places


Doh

As ro being calm, you are justy making me laugh you twat.

The fact is being the prejudice little runt that you are, you know youj have no argument based off prejudice and think now public places is only limited to the trains.

You really are a thick c u n t ha ha

Now either debate the points, or crawl away you pathetic waste of space

Dude - you cannot spout such verbal abuse and claim you are calm and rational. Lol! Nobody is buying that.

You claimed there was historical evidence of women being abused in mixed locker rooms and so gender separation was required.

I then asked you for that evidence, as you claim to be a history buff.

You failed. You tried to widen the goal post to public transport. You failed again. Then you got angry. And now you are abusive.

And how am I prejudice - I'm for MIXED CHANGING ROOMS - HA HA!

How do I know who's gay in a locker room? I don't, which means I have no reason to give a fuck. Perhaps in your hysteria and anger, you missed that bit above.

See the video I posted - in the era of LGBTTXXX, the only thing that makes sense is unisex locker rooms. D'UH!

I am just treating you with the same intolerance you have for groups of others.
When you stop being a prejudiced twat, then I will stop being intolerant to you.
Its called a learning process

Again you are a fuckwit, I have shown women face problems with harrssment in public places, which means there is a problem.

You were the one earlier backing the other homophobe and now change your tune lol

I already stated I am for unisex changing rooms, as you may have missed I say whoever has an issue it is there issue, so tough shit.

So its you that has been moving the goal posts lol

But then you are a homophobic twat at the end of the day

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Public places, which is a big group which includes many places.

Which you cannot refute but cointinue to spout even more bullshit, but then you are a complete simpleton.

So nothing busted as this is about public places of which swimming pools are Public places


Doh

As ro being calm, you are justy making me laugh you twat.

The fact is being the prejudice little runt that you are, you know youj have no argument based off prejudice and think now public places is only limited to the trains.

You really are a thick c u n t ha ha

Now either debate the points, or crawl away you pathetic waste of space

Dude - you cannot spout such verbal abuse and claim you are calm and rational. Lol! Nobody is buying that.

You claimed there was historical evidence of women being abused in mixed locker rooms and so gender separation was required.

I then asked you for that evidence, as you claim to be a history buff.

You failed. You tried to widen the goal post to public transport. You failed again. Then you got angry. And now you are abusive.

And how am I prejudice - I'm for MIXED CHANGING ROOMS - HA HA!

How do I know who's gay in a locker room? I don't, which means I have no reason to give a fuck. Perhaps in your hysteria and anger, you missed that bit above.

See the video I posted - in the era of LGBTTXXX, the only thing that makes sense is unisex locker rooms. D'UH!

I am just treating you with the same intolerance you have for groups of others.
When you stop being a prejudiced twat, then I will stop being intolerant to you.
Its called a learning process

Again you are a fuckwit, I have shown women face problems with harrssment in public places, which means there is a problem.

You were the one earlier backing the other homophobe and now change your tune lol

I already stated I am for unisex changing rooms, as you may have missed I say whoever has an issue it is there issue, so tough shit.

So its you that has been moving the goal posts lol

But then you are a homophobic twat at the end of the day

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

lol, how little you know me.

With sexy, i can talk to her as a human being, in your case, you are just a complete fuckwit, hence there is little point in showing you any decency, because you are a first rate prick.

Now do you understand and this was all your own making, so get used to and enjoy

This was all my own making? Thank you for finally admitting I have total emotional control over you.

Feel free to hold a grudge and wallow in your negativity. That's not my style.

Like I said you are a prejudiced intolerant fuckwit, mainly because of your idiotic religious beliefs. You have no emotional control over anything, it is the other way around.
You are just an immature child, who clearly is led by fear, as without fear, you would have no need to believe. That is the reality of the situation.
So when you start showing some tolerance, then I shall replicate, until then, I shalkl treat you like the immature twat that you are.

Tommy suffers from the typical mindset of the homophobe who seems to think that gay people are, for some reason, also sex-crazed maniacs. It's the same mentality that people use when they try to argue against gays in the military.

So I'm a homophobe because I wouldn't want someone leering at me in a changing room and making me feel uncomfortable while I was in a state of undress...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

So I'm a homophobe because I wouldn't want someone leering at me in a changing room and making me feel uncomfortable while I was in a state of undress...?

I cant speak for everyone but I find the it more confusing that you dont have a problem unless you know they are gay  
At least if you know you can wear a towel and not 'drop the soap' 

there are gay men in the change room already they are just not out of the closet   i think you might be missing that homosexual are not like migrants they are not some new people coming they are the people already in the room, you are just letting them be honest about who they are instead of having to pretend they are something they are not around you.

I already said I wouldn't like a woman leering at me either!!!


EIther you think it is ok for someone to be hanging around in changing rooms leering at others or not!?

What if you like being leared at?

Just don't touch.

Firemen and women had unisex facilities for years.

Tommy Monk wrote:I already said I wouldn't like a woman leering at me either!!!


EIther you think it is ok for someone to be hanging around in changing rooms leering at others or not!?

that is not the issue
as pretty sure that is against  the rule
But HOW on earth that does that have anything to do with allowing openly gay men into the change room? 


how do you deal with the closeted gay men in locker room now? like do you have a problem with them leering at you uncontrollably?
Cause if you have shared a locker room with a team of over 16 guys statically at least one of them was attracted to blokes

Still want to know what you'd actually like to see happen tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:I already said I wouldn't like a woman leering at me either!!!


EIther you think it is ok for someone to be hanging around in changing rooms leering at others or not!?

Well if you don't want them leering at you then send them to me where they can leer away until their heart is content.