Among all the frocks, make-up, leather, feathers, studs, and swimwear at the 2015 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras will be something peculiar at the parade's centrepiece - footballers.

The main float at this year's event tackles one of the last remaining strongholds of homophobia in contemporary society - sport. Football will be joining forces with all major codes in a fight to stamp out discrimination by deploying ambassadors.

Rhyan Grant, Thea Slatyer, Sunni Hughes and Paul Reid will stand alongside the likes of Matthew Mitcham, Daniel Kowalski, Greg Matthews and Paul Langmack in showing their support for LGBT rights. It is the biggest show of such statement from football, but that could soon change.

Football Federation Australia is set to unveil an advisory group focusing on anti-homophobia and the organisation's Head of Community and Women's football, Emma Highwood, says the next stage will turn its attention towards the A-League which has the greatest reach to football's widest audience.

"The A-League is the best tool we have to raise awareness, so to have key messages and ambassadors addressing the key issues in the game and actually start to promote some positive messaging," Highwood said. "For us it's also about educating the community as well so having good education systems in place at grass roots level."

The harsh reality is that sport lags behind the rest of Australian culture in terms of the prevalence of homophobia. Based on a national study conducted last year involving 2500 participations, 85 per cent of gay or lesbian athletes of all levels experienced or witnessed homophobic abuse as well as three-quarters of heterosexual athletes.

Gay men are the most vulnerable, with one in four reporting ongoing cases of abuse, bullying and threats.

Women's football has a history of addressing homophobia, with Australian clubs having worn rainbow coloured socks to promote gender and sexual diversity in sport.

The game could soon become the first major code to have jerseys raising awareness for gay rights and anti-homophobia. A rainbow strip, or iconic mardi gras jerseys in the A-League as part of a public campaign, is regarded as the strongest message of equality football can send to the community.

"A jersey, I think, is a fantastic idea and the rainbow socks is something we've done in the W-League with Canberra United in the past. But we have to have a clear PR strategy around it because otherwise people will see those and not know the relevance," Highwood said.

As a message, it goes further than reactive punishments of abusers but shows unequivocal support. Sydney FC has been involved with the anti-homophobia campaigns such as the LGBT football competition, the Pride Cup, and was quick to have representation at this year's mardi gras. The club's chief executive, Tony Pignata, did not rule out extending their support to a one-off jersey bearing the rainbow flag for future seasons.

"I've never thought about it, to be honest, but it's something we could consider, definitely," Pignata said. "We will definitely support it [the mardi gras]. We were very supportive of the Pride football tournament."

A Western Sydney Wanderers' spokesman said the club were not asked to be involved but they supported the movement.

For those working with major codes in creating anti-homophobia programs, such symbolism and public recognition is viewed as the strongest statement sport could make.

"Jerseys would be a great idea," Bingham Cup president Andrew Purchas said. "Those symbols are really important and that's the difference from just making sure you're not vilifying somebody but actually going out and saying they will support them in their sport."

In 10 years of the A-League there has never been an openly gay player but that's not uncommon by global standards. In February 2013, Robbie Rogers became just the second male player in Britain to come out as gay with the pioneer, Justin Fashanu in 1990, suffering years of abuse before his tragic death.

Homophobic banners used as insults have been visible in past games and there's a poorly kept secret from the 2007-08 season of one player attacking a teammate in the dressing room because he was gay.

It's a culture that is not exclusive to football and trickles down to the grassroots levels of all sport, but it's a matter football is looking to change.

"People don't have to be out and we don't want to force that upon them, but we want to create an environment where they feel safe to do so if they choose," Highwood said.

If the Sydney mardi gras is an event that sets the standard for the world's fight to end homophobia, it's only fitting for Australian clubs to lead that battle within global football. No game in this country has a history of being more welcoming of "sheilas" and "wogs". Now is the time to extend that to one more demographic.

Xtra time?

Why?

It's about Australian football, and an Australian football team, getting behind a serious issue in not just in football, and sport alone, but society as a whole.


Edited by Heineken: 7/3/2015 05:12:21 AM

Rhyan Grant, Thea Slatyer, Sunni Hughes and Paul Reid will stand alongside the likes of Matthew Mitcham, Daniel Kowalski, Greg Matthews and Paul Langmack in showing their support for LGBT rights.

Homophobics, either park your hoola hoop at the front door, or just stay the fuck out of this thread entirely. Mods, please actively patrol this thread, and be ready to delete any homophobic comments.

Has a your briefed Seb Ryall??????

you see sir, it's this sort of aggressive militant gun loaded and ready to fire attitude that shits people up. by all means, support your homosexual causes but when you come across as preachy and you have your gun out ready to shoot at anyone with labels who may think differently or disagree with your position, that's when the intolerance weakens your very good causes. just a tip champ

Way to live up to your stereotype

Homophobics, either park your hoola hoop at the front door, or just stay the fuck out of this thread entirely. Mods, please actively patrol this thread, and be ready to delete any homophobic comments.

Excellent stuff. Good to see the many homosexuals in the cove accepted. A step in the right direction.

Excellent stuff. Good to see the many homosexuals in the cove accepted. A step in the right direction.

Being called gay either in the stands of on the field shouldn't be seen as an insult. It is a low act to turn someone's off field activities into an insult.

The Matilda's have just undergone a nasty sexiest and derogatory match in Cyrpus by the UK army. We wouldn't and we don't accept that why should the above be acceptable

It says more about you and T-Unit that you view this supposed stereotype as a negative thing.

Sydney FC- The only club for all of Sydney.

=d>

It says more about you and T-Unit that you view this supposed stereotype as a negative thing.

They can have that to themselves

good work fellas. you'd only post in opposition to this if you were a homophobe. god forbid those homosexuals might want to defend themselves.

good work fellas. you'd only post in opposition to this if you were a homophobe. god forbid those homosexuals might want to defend themselves.

Yeah nah I have no issue with the gay community and am all for their rights to do as they please, but I'd still rather not have my club known as the gay club like Sydney is.

Edited by melbourne_terrace: 7/3/2015 08:02:10 PM

Nothing wrong with being known as the gay club. Sydney has certainly accepted this and their support for their fellow supporters should be followed by all.

shut up and get off your high horse.
my only issue was the idiot who posted should just have posted the bloody information and left it open for an open discussion. the fact that he chose to insert some sort of pre-emptive defense just shows how terrified he is of free speech. feel free to post anything you want but why the need to insert some sort of censorship is unnecessarily stupid

Don't even waste your time trying to explain yourself. Your first post was very clear, yet some people on this forum just can't resist twisting and turning people's words and labelling them homophobic.

Edited by robstazzz: 7/3/2015 10:26:33 PM

he is only interested in 13 or younger

So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.

Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots.

You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses.

Really, I'm not sure how else "support your homosexual causes" could be construed other than he doesn't like gay people? The fact that he even has a problem with it says more than enough like u4486662 said. I feel sorry for you that you can't even see it.

Edited by Draupnir: 8/3/2015 01:10:55 AM

I honestly couldnt careless who sleeps with who or who loves who.

I do care with people bashing their chests claiming that people are Neanderthals for not accepting gay marriage. The church is a religious institution.

Sorry if this sounds rude but just like I said to fatboi there is no point explaining some things to others who would never understand so I won't even waste my time.

The church is a religious institution.

Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution.

No the church hides child molesters, as the pope acknowledged and religion is accountable for half of the crap going on the world. Sorry but I thought Christianity preached tolerance and understanding. The inquisition I suppose is more in line with modern thinking, you know "lets behead some poor fucker who doesn't share our beliefs".

I honestly couldnt careless who sleeps with who or who loves who.

I do care with people bashing their chests claiming that people are Neanderthals for not accepting gay marriage. The church is a religious institution.

Rarely do we align but must agree.

I don't mind either, what they do in private is just that. But I'm not in favour of promoting it either.

Adam and Eve weren't two men.

Rarely do we align but must agree.

I don't mind either, what they do in private is just that. But I'm not in favour of promoting it either.

Adam and Eve weren't two men.

Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution.

I just find it ironic people marginalize those who are apparently marginalising and wonder why no progress has been made on their behalf.

Im just sick of the view thay you are wrong if you dont agree with... Since when did we become a single thought society.

The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex.

Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage.

Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free.

Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only.

Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free.

Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past.

Poor comparison.

Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition.

Once again, I'm correct.

A civil union is a non religious marriage.

My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage.

Yep, and the point I was trying to make. Marriage like it or not is not a religious institution alone. If it was how do atheist marry? How do agnostics? I can't start my own religion and declare dogs and cats are married, they must be recognised by the state. Therefore marriage is a state institution not a religious one.

You can declare God says man and women etc, and that is fine, the state isn't forcing you to marry someone you don't want to. But your God might be different to my God who might not exist as far as the other person thinks. Therefore your religious laws do not govern me. And that is the point. The state does religion doesn't.

I think I need to add, this reply is not directly to u4486662, as we are saying the same thing, the reply is in general to the topic, I just want to make that clear


Edited by post_hoc: 8/3/2015 10:53:57 AM

Edited by post_hoc: 8/3/2015 10:54:35 AM

No the church hides child molesters, as the pope acknowledged and religion is accountable for half of the crap going on the world. Sorry but I thought Christianity preached tolerance and understanding. The inquisition I suppose is more in line with modern thinking, you know "lets behead some poor fucker who doesn't share our beliefs".

Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free.

Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only.

Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free.

This is probably the worst post I've seen of the 6 years I've been visiting this site. Disgrace

Surely this thread deserves a lock by now

Tries to bait people to be homophobic so he can call people homophobic. Pretty sad.

My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage.

I honestly couldnt careless who sleeps with who or who loves who.

I do care with people bashing their chests claiming that people are Neanderthals for not accepting gay marriage. The church is a religious institution.

Whats the church got to do with this. And there are lots of marriages that would not be recognized by Christian Churches. They include Muslim marriages, Budist, non denominational/celebrant only.

Should we ban these marriages because they don't fit with your religion/church?

This is getting out of hand, give it a lock

Mods won't lock it until a WSW fan screams vilification and seeing as the Cove is the main focus of this thread, it won't be happening anytime soon.

So why should a church honour a marriage if they disagree. My point was and still is if you disagree with homosexuality it doesnt make you a morally bad person as OP tried to assert and should be banned for vilification.

It seems pretty obvious you know nothing about the difference between Christian religions. Roman Catholics don't represent the whole Christian faith, so when you talk about the Roman Catholic church hiding paedophilia that has absolutely nothing to do with the Orthodox church for example who is also Christian and has nothing to do with the Vatican.
Your theory is so fucked up that you could easily say out of all the paedophile priests being charged they are always of anglo background. Does this make all anglos paedophiles?
Do your research before you attack a religion and as for religion being the cause of war all I can do is shake my head. You actually fall for that shit the media puts through your head when in fact nearly every single war is ONLY because of MONEY and LAND and they use religion to trick people like you and many others into believing religion is a bad thing.

My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage.

Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman?

As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation).

If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society.

This is probably the worst post I've seen of the 6 years I've been visiting this site. Disgrace

Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman?

As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation).

If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society.

As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

"In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall. [3] Of which, some have identified and listed that only 123 (7%) were primarily religiously motivated.[4][5][6] The Encyclopedia of Wars identifies 420 as being religious in nature (a quarter), and of those religious wars, Christianity and Islam both feature in well over half.[page needed] Between them, Christianity and Islam have been involved in over 85% of the religious wars.[page needed] Analysis of the wars documented in the encyclopedia, reveals that since the Christian era, there have only been 440 years without a religious war; and the last year without a religious war was 1080.[page needed]"

Love how its ok to insult the gays or a club for saying they wont tolerate hate but to insult a religion is criminal for stating the obvious. *sigh*