Not really, I'm trying to point out that really the chants (I refuse to use the word 'banter') aren't 'homophobic' as such. An example: Picture the scene; Brighton have just signed the first openly-gay active (as opposed to retired player). He goes down to take a corner in front of the away fans and they all stand up and shout "Does your boyfriend know you're here". Now that IS homophobic chanting, pure and simple. The player is being singled out because of his sexual orientation in exactly the same way as black players were targetted in the 1970s. In that instance I'd be the first to sign any petition to have it stamped out, and that is despite the fact the away fans were only using the 'mild' chant that curiously, and hypocritically, most of the people who object to the 'homophobic' chants don't seem to mind. In other words there is a real difference between genuine homophobic chanting and generic name-calling of the sheepshagger, inbred, pikey, scrounger, wifebeater, thief, sweaty, mutant, thicko variety that has always been a part of football culture.
In addition I said on another thread that it seems that some people are objecting, not because of any offence to the gay community, but because people said vile and unpleasant things in front of their wives and/or children. Fair enough and I completely understand, but isn't that a different debate? Effectively people are campaigning against bad language and boorish behaviour at football matches. However that sounds a bit TOO twee, even for modern fans, so saying "we're campaigning against homophobia" sounds more acceptable. Especially with the specious "It's the same as the racist chanting in the 1970s" argument thrown in.
