• 119
  • 6160
Image for Wallabies captain blasts homophobia

Wallabies captain blastshomophobia

Australian Wallabies rugby team captain David Pocock believes gay couples should be able to marry, and that homophobia in sport should not be tolerated.

Last year the respected sportsman vowed not to marry his fiancé until the Australian government legalises same sex marriage. His latest comments on the ABC’s Q&A show indicate he’s holding on strong to that vow.

“We have got friends who are in loving, committed, monogamous relationships but don’t have the opportunity to get married,” he said on last week’s episode. “And so we decided that until they have that opportunity, we wouldn’t. It’s a personal decision.

“I think the debate about equal rights in marriage really has to move forward, and can’t be used as a political football by the two parties… We have moved forward on so many other issues and I think this is the next progression.”

The rugby star also challenged the view put forward by footballer Jason Akermanis that sports players shouldn’t come out.

People don’t choose their sexuality, Pocock added, and he added that many people in the LGBTI community are marginalised for who they are.

“If you look at all the football codes, there’s no athletes that have sort of come out in the last few years, and if you look at the statistics, there have to be athletes [that are gay],” he said. “A sort of macho or whatever way of viewing football in Australia prevents people from expressing their sexuality. This is something that we have to change.

“We have to be challenging homophobia so that people, regardless of their sexuality, can express that.”

Watch these scenes from last week’s sports-themed Q&A panel discussion below.

This week’s Q&A, airing live on ABC1 tonight (Monday 6 August) from 9:35pm, includes maverick Queensland MP Bob Katter.

A gay equality-themed question is bound to be asked, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens when Katter is probed, considering his strange behaviour on Ten’s chat show The Circle a few weeks ago – see what happened here.

Social

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
28590
JayTee

JayTee said on the 9th Aug, 2012

too many men too little time. why not let his current girlfriend have what he's got? all that rang would go to waste otherwise!

plus he when he has children with her, he is keeping the ranga gene alive.

did you know that scientists have predicted that if things keep going the way they are that within 500 years rangas will have been bred out of existance?

that would be such a tragedy for the human race! poCOCK has a duty to keep the ranga DNA alive and well! ;)

JayTee

JayTee said on the 9th Aug, 2012



perhaps he sees Jesus as more of a philosopher or guru (instead of a deity) and is just following his instructions to be kind to others?

that's the problem with most Christians, they only follow the rules of the Old Testament, but Jesus said that the old testament was all bullshit and they should start to lead their lives differently. hence he talked about forgiveness, love, compassion etc. and not a word about homosexuals, nor even sex being bad. he hung out with prostitutes.

most christians these days are in fact Jews who happen to have a few different holidays, but don't follow the word of Jesus.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Aug, 2012

perhaps he sees Jesus as more of a philosopher or guru (instead of a deity) and is just following his instructions to be kind to others?


You dont think its an even simpler explaination than that? Possibly that he is a christian because he blindly followed his parents religious beliefs

Barrin

Barrin said on the 9th Aug, 2012

I don't think we should over-analyse this. It's easier for us to come out, therefore it's easier for any supporters to come out.
Where were the David Pococks 30 or 40 years ago?

mark_

mark_ said on the 9th Aug, 2012

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/sho...683#post578683

I'm suggesting that he's already planning his second career. Most ex-sportsplayers try to get employment as tv presenters or "motivational speakers". I'm suggesting that Pocock's manager (on the QnA clip) is doing a Ben Cohen.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 9th Aug, 2012



his parents religion said to support gay marriage at the begining of your captaining the Australia Rugby Union team (as opposed to to when you've finished your career) and endanger your sponsorhip deals?

i'm as atheist as you are, but you have to admit that "be kind to others" is a pretty good philosophy to live by, even if a man named Jesus was one of the historical figures that espoused it to a whole group of people.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Aug, 2012



i'm as atheist as you are, but you have to admit that "be kind to others" is a pretty good philosophy to live by, even if a man named Jesus was one of the historical figures that espoused it to a whole group of people.
being kind to others is most certainly not something that christianity has a morgage on. There are plenty of people who manage it without the infection of christianity. In fact christains have spent a vast slice of their history being entirely unkind to vast swathes of people. We owe it as an institution, sweet fuck all.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 9th Aug, 2012


i'm as atheist as you are, but you have to admit that "be kind to others" is a pretty good philosophy to live by, even if a man named Jesus was one of the historical figures that espoused it to a whole group of people.

Careful. If you consider yourself an atheist then you really shouldn't be crediting religion with things that are just common sense.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 9th Aug, 2012



completely agree with you on that one.


There are plenty of people who manage it without the infection of christianity. In fact christains have spent a vast slice of their history being entirely unkind to vast swathes of people. We owe it as an institution, sweet fuck all.

not saying we owe christians anything. only that there are in fact people in the world who are true christians (as rare as they may be) who follow the philosophy Jesus espoused, and not the fake ones who are all full of hate and moralising (who are in the vast majority).

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Aug, 2012



not saying we owe christians anything. only that there are in fact people in the world who are true christians (as rare as they may be) who follow the philosophy Jesus espoused, and not the fake ones who are all full of hate and moralising (who are in the vast majority).

but who cares whether or not he is a "true" christian (which i severely doubt that it is possible for anyone in the modern era to be a "true" christian)? A true christian still attaches mystical over-tones to a deluded, lying, 2000 year old shyster, who happened to have the gift-of-the-gab. I fail to see why this is something that needs to be held up in a rosy glow.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 9th Aug, 2012

David Pocock. A genuine person with heart. Good on him for sharing his opinions.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012



by "true" christian I mean someone who follows the teachings of Jesus. The same Jesus who said that the old testament was a load of crock and that people should just treat each other with respect. ie moving from "an eye for an eye" to "love thy neighbour".

The reason why this "philosophy" (not religion) should be held in a rosy glow is that because thats how enlightened atheist live their lives. we value fairness and equality - if that's something that we have in common with people who believe in sky fairies, then we should be working from that common ground, because "fairness" and "equality" can be debated. what happens after people die can't be.

We should be working with these types of religious folk so that the more extremists can't recruit more to their ranks.

In a similar way to how anti-terrorism experts work with moderate muslims so the extremists don't have a base from which to recruit.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012



surely you jest?

if not, i'll need 2 banannas and a volunteer to demonstrate....

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012

by "true" christian I mean someone who follows the teachings of Jesus. The same Jesus who said that the old testament was a load of crock and that people should just treat each other with respect. ie moving from "an eye for an eye" to "love thy neighbour".

The reason why this "philosophy" (not religion) should be held in a rosy glow is that because thats how enlightened atheist live their lives. we value fairness and equality - if that's something that we have in common with people who believe in sky fairies, then we should be working from that common ground, because "fairness" and "equality" can be debated..

but as barrin pointed out - they are common sense values, not religious values. Its a no-brainer.
And on your statement about the old testament being a "load of crock" - well yes, but the new testament, with stories of an old man in a giant boat crashing into a mountain top with an inter-breeding set of two of every animal species on board, an unemployed carpenter walking on water + magically increasing bread and fish numbers to feed people, and a new star guiding three camel riders to the location of a baby who was conceived without the aid of sperm, is ALSO a load of crock!
So technically, a "true" christian is simply someone who is unable to separte fact from fiction, despite all logical pointings.
If jesus was born in this era, he would be no more than the crazy, shonky demtel man trying to sell us steak knives that we dont need - but wait, there's more!

Fahed

Fahed said on the 12th Aug, 2012

surely you jest?

if not, i'll need 2 banannas and a volunteer to demonstrate....

hmm... pounding ass is hungry work.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012

but as barrin pointed out - they are common sense values, not religious values. Its a no-brainer.



it may be common sense, but unfortunately it's not all that common.

Alot of people's basic nature is to be selfish and they need the threat of a big stick to make them work towards a greater good.

but isn't it a good sign that some of those people are starting to want to do the right thing because they can see the logic behind it, instead of only doing it because of the threat of spending eternity in a sauna?

All enlightened thinking follows the same path eg. doing it because you'll be punished, doing it because it's the right thing, doing it because it's just what comes natural to you. some people are just further along the path than others.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012


but isn't it a good sign that some of those people are starting to want to do the right thing because they can see the logic behind it, instead of only doing it because of the threat of spending eternity in a sauna?


completely. And that further makes religion 100% irrelevant to modern western society. We should be trying to expunge its backwater influence on formal society in terms of the way it holds us back, as opposed to praising it.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012



banannas are a good source of potassium I hear ;)

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012



When dealing with children (and religious people should be treated just like children), experts always advise to praise the behaviours you approve of (in this case using reason instead of magic) and ignore the behaviours you don't like.

so yes, in this case we should be praising christians who are talking about equality for all, instead of the usual biblical magic they rely on so much.

encouraging the behaviour is not the same thing as encouraging the belief behind the behaviour.

similar to how customer service trainers tell people to smile before they answer the phone as their voice will sound happier. Behaviour comes first, then emotions (or thinking) comes after that.

we won't eradicate religion from our society in one swift chop (to the neck). It's a process of getting one person at a time to let go of magical thinking....

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012

^^^^so on this theme of encouraging behaviour that is hardly deserving of encouragement - should we give kieran loveridge a clap everytime he doesnt go into kings cross and king-hit random people strolling around? I'll answer that - fuck no. Apply the same tough love to religous people, and stop treating them like they are some sort of protected species that we owe something to

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012

you are being too idealistic and not practical enough. it takes some intelligence - and real courage - to let go of religion, understand that it's a load of crock designed to keep people in their place and accept that when you are dead that's it.

alot of people can't handle that idea so they cling to their religious beliefs like a child clings to it's mother whenever it's scared.

and as for rewarding that dude for not king hitting people (i don't know who that is, i'm assuming he's some thug), there are lots of arguments around that support the idea that people without criminal histories should pay less tax - in the same way that people who sign up to health insurance when they are 30 don't pay as much as people who sign up when they are 55 and will need a hip replacement in a few years.

ie. get a criminal conviction and your tax rate goes up by X% (depending on the severity of your crime) for life.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012

you are being too idealistic and not practical enough. it takes some intelligence - and real courage - to let go of religion, understand that it's a load of crock designed to keep people in their place and accept that when you are dead that's it.


Right, but this man hasnt done any of these things - he is just doing the time honored tradition of cherry-picking the bits of religion that suit his life and discarding the thing that dont suit his life. It makes him look wishy-washy and all-over-the-place, and not know whether he is arthur or martha. At least those people that subscribe completely to religion have the courage of their convictions. Shop-front christians like this guy are just bloody annoying

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012



True. But he's a he'll of a lot closer to closer to being an intelligent atheist than his blind leading the blind brethren. I'd much rather support his equality for all stance and see more christians move closer to the path of reason, than to just dismiss him as a crackpot because that wnt solve anything.

At the end of the day there are seriously more dangerous religious people in this world we should be worried about and deal with first.

This guy is one of our recruitments in the process. His kids will be atheist be ause they'll be brought up in a household where you are allowed to question whet you are taught - because his parents have believed in equality for all.

You can bet your bottom dollar that it's easier to become in an atheist in a household like that, than it is in a household were you are ordered to believe what you are being taught without any room for questioning.

I once had a client who grew up in a household where his father had 2 wives and treated them like shit. Guess what kind of attitude the son had towards women?

I'd rather concentrate on eradicating such mysoginisitc attitudes, than shout down a Christian football player who is public ally advocating for same sex marriage.


It makes him look wishy-washy and all-over-the-place, and not know whether he is arthur or martha. At least those people that subscribe completely to religion have the courage of their convictions. Shop-front christians like this guy are just bloody annoying

I agree that shop front Christians are annoying, but I don't think this dude is one of them. He's 24, and is still working out the consequences of his ethics. Ie. He's basing his morals on reason but he doesn't know it yet.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012


I agree that shop front Christians are annoying, but I don't think this dude is one of them. He's 24, and is still working out the consequences of his ethics. Ie. He's basing his morals on reason but he doesn't know it yet.
I think you should stop looking at photos of him while you are typing your posts.
His kids will be christians because they will do what he did to his parents - follow their beliefs

local_warming

local_warming said on the 12th Aug, 2012


I'd rather concentrate on eradicating such mysoginisitc attitudes, than shout down a Christian football player who is public ally advocating for same sex marriage.
.

Well im cynical about this - i think its just a blatant PR grab

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012

if it was at the end of his career, or post career (like so many gay athletes/musicians/politicians like to do!), then I would agree. but he's not yet reached the peak of his career and has only just started captaining the wallabies.

i just don't think that there is that much to gain from making a stand on this particular issue for him. there just isn't that big a gay population in this country to make money off of in this way.

perhaps he has a gay brother/sister/father/mother. that often explains people's support in this area.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 12th Aug, 2012

I think you should stop looking at photos of him while you are typing your posts.
His kids will be christians because they will do what he did to his parents - follow their beliefs

children are always an evolution of the direction their parents were headed in. if it was a downward spiral of sexism, racism, homophobia, then the children will be even more so.

if it was in an upward direction, towards equality, respect and reason , then again the kids will be a progression on that

if children only ever believed as their parents did there wouldn't be half as many atheists as there are because 400 years ago everyone was religious almost without exception - and religious folk statistically have more children on average than non-religious.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

children are always an evolution of the direction their parents were headed in. if it was a downward spiral of sexism, racism, homophobia, then the children will be even more so.

if it was in an upward direction, towards equality, respect and reason , then again the kids will be a progression on that

if children only ever believed as their parents did there wouldn't be half as many atheists as there are because 400 years ago everyone was religious almost without exception - and religious folk statistically have more children on average than non-religious.

I think there is an increasing trend of parents who have lived their life trouble-free, producing bad-egg teenagers and young adults

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

if it was at the end of his career, or post career (like so many gay athletes/musicians/politicians like to do!), then I would agree. but he's not yet reached the peak of his career and has only just started captaining the wallabies.

i just don't think that there is that much to gain from making a stand on this particular issue for him. there just isn't that big a gay population in this country to make money off of in this way.

perhaps he has a gay brother/sister/father/mother. that often explains people's support in this area.

I can believe you need to ask what is the gain from him, when the answer is obvious and right in front of you - an apperance on Q & A in this instance. He was only selected for this Q & A appearance in the first place because of his prior public comments on same sex marriage - without those prior comments, there would have been no Q & A appearance. Q & A have taken gay marriage under their wing as its pet issue - Q & A would have made certain that someone was going to ask a question of that ilk, so that pocock could have had his little speel on marriage equality, that was expected of him, and Q & A could then use the speel as the promo clip for the next week for Q & A ( which they have done).
He is going to play for the wallabies, regardless of his public views (if any), so him playing for the wallabies is not designed to be a beneficiary of this image that he is endeavouring to carve - the man is CLEARLY and BLATANTLY laying the foundations for a public career outside of rugby, by building his profile (not everyone watches rugby you know - even less when they get beaten by teams like tonga and co, like the present team)

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012



They have. And they have pet questioners as well as pet issues.

I have been to about four tapings. The producers prod the audience for questions for a week before the taping and then again for the 90 minute gathering before the taping.

There's just so many likely topics to ask but the production assistants walk through the crowd to prompt photogenic people to ask the questions. They have a definite preference for the under-25s and the non-whiteys.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

^^^^^^interesting. I think im going to have to put attending a recording of Q & A on my september to-do list

Phazz

Phazz said on the 13th Aug, 2012

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Dexter_Morgan.jpg/250px-Dexter_Morgan.jpg

Dexter Morgan

http://pinkrugby.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/David-Pocock-on-Marriage-Equality.png

David Pocock

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

I can believe you need to ask what is the gain from him, when the answer is obvious and right in front of you - an apperance on Q & A in this instance. He was only selected for this Q & A appearance in the first place because of his prior public comments on same sex marriage - without those prior comments, there would have been no Q & A appearance. Q & A have taken gay marriage under their wing as its pet issue - Q & A would have made certain that someone was going to ask a question of that ilk, so that pocock could have had his little speel on marriage equality, that was expected of him, and Q & A could then use the speel as the promo clip for the next week for Q & A ( which they have done).
He is going to play for the wallabies, regardless of his public views (if any), so him playing for the wallabies is not designed to be a beneficiary of this image that he is endeavouring to carve - the man is CLEARLY and BLATANTLY laying the foundations for a public career outside of rugby, by building his profile (not everyone watches rugby you know - even less when they get beaten by teams like tonga and co, like the present team)

Wow, such much Pocock hate: you sure you're gay?

Why are you being so cynical about a guy (and by proxy his fiance) who seems to believe in goodness, equality, and egalitarianism because of the intrinsic values they breed within a community, by virtue of him being a public figure who is also Christian. He didn't mention God or Jesus once as his reason for believing in marriage equality (though he may have alluded to religion previously). He seems like a good guy, who is an outstanding Rugby player, and who seems to be genuine in his concerns for equality, the environment, and for poverty relief.

Can't he just be a good dude who likes to do the right thing whose favourite philosopher just happens to be Jesus (I personally like Socrates, but they both held pretty similar views)?

Atheists (of which I am one) don't own the rights to being good or the getting of wisdom. There have been plenty of Atheists who have been nothing more than vile, repugnant shit-stains on the history of humanity - Pol Pot, Stalin, Ayn Rand - but I would be offended if a Christian tried to smear all Atheists with a claim that being an un-believer is the cause of such violently- and selfishly-evil impulses.

The cause of LBTI equality has not been fought by queer people alone: if there had been no support from large parts of "straight society" then we'd still be committing illegal acts in Australia just by engaging in sexual activity with other people of the same sex. Minorities do not gain rights through being vocal by themselves, it requires parts of the majority to say, 'Fuck yeah! I'm human, you're human, let's get this shit done."

Point is that it's not really fair to paint all Christians as believing what the ACL believes. I know plenty myself who are just as dismissive of the ACL's claims to piety as any of my secular humanist friends.

I think it's a great thing that the current captain of the Wallabies is voicing his support for LGBTI rights and marriage equality. I don't give a fuck if he's Christian or not, he is showing himself to be someone who is willing to be vocal about injustices that are within Australian and Global society. To criticise him makes you sound ridiculous really, as well as slightly heterophobic and intolerant. Just sayin' yo.

I'm getting off my large equine shaped dildo now. :D

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012


No, it's just wariness of being used by a prick-teaser for his commercial gain

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

you sure you're gay?

. To criticise him makes you sound ridiculous really, as well as slightly heterophobic and intolerant. Just sayin' yo.


Yeah you 're right - i should just clasp my hands together, draw a breathless sigh, drool over his pecs, and stop trying to obstruct him from using this as vehicle for forging a media career

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Of which you have plenty of evidence he is actually gaining financially from his stances on climate change action, LGBTI rights, and poverty relief right?

Maybe you are the one being cynical and he is the one being hopeful. It would be easier for him I'm sure, in a commercial sense, to be apolitical and remain silent on contentious public policy issues. He's not silent though, he's standing up for things he believes in yet gets criticised, not from the opponents of LGBTI rights (though I'm sure Institutions of Hate such as the ACL has him now marked), but from the very people whose rights he is championing. I suspect foul-irony at play.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Wow, he might want a media career at some point. Nah fuck him, he should play rugby until he does.

He could just as easily have opposing views and became a Sky News pundit, or a News Ltd tabloid shill, or the next Alan Jones or Chris Smith, but nah he'd rather have fake political beliefs and posture on them some, so as to get the big bank the ABC will offer him once his playing days are over. Oh that's right I forgot, we're making him play Rugby forever aren't we (it is the game they play in heaven after all - boom tish)?

Sheesh!

Why don't you wait until he's caught giving a foul-mouthed tirade against the latte-sipping, commie, pinko, greenie PC elites before you start fabricating ulterior motives for him that you can then get pissed off about. You are creating a problem from a solution, that be some crazy dialectics you got right there.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Why would that be easier for him to stay silent? No one would buy his current book then, or his next book

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012

Pocock's book costs $30 but he charges $10 extra for his signature in it. He also sells boots.

Ben Cohen and his wife sells calendars and T-shirts for $35 and underwear for $38. He also organised a Mediterranean cruise so the gays could be photographed with him for a few thousand dollars.

I'm assuming the mastermind behind Pocock is the PR manager asking a question at the 34 minute mark in this clip from last Monday's QnA.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3551534.htm

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Why don't you wait until he's caught giving a foul-mouthed tirade against the latte-sipping, commie, pinko, greenie PC elites before you start fabricating ulterior motives for him that you can then get pissed off about. You are creating a problem from a solution.

He probably wont need us then. I think we are just needed as the initial launching pad.
Clearly you have no problem with being used ......

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 13th Aug, 2012

Of which you have plenty of evidence he is actually gaining financially from his stances on climate change action, LGBTI rights, and poverty relief right?

Maybe you are the one being cynical and he is the one being hopeful. It would be easier for him I'm sure, in a commercial sense, to be apolitical and remain silent on contentious public policy issues. He's not silent though, he's standing up for things he believes in yet gets criticised, not from the opponents of LGBTI rights (though I'm sure Institutions of Hate such as the ACL has him now marked), but from the very people whose rights he is championing. I suspect foul-irony at play.

Wow, he might want a media career at some point. Nah fuck him, he should play rugby until he does.

He could just as easily have opposing views and became a Sky News pundit, or a News Ltd tabloid shill, or the next Alan Jones or Chris Smith, but nah he'd rather have fake political beliefs and posture on them some, so as to get the big bank the ABC will offer him once his playing days are over. Oh that's right I forgot, we're making him play Rugby forever aren't we (it is the game they play in heaven after all - boom tish)?

Sheesh!

Why don't you wait until he's caught giving a foul-mouthed tirade against the latte-sipping, commie, pinko, greenie PC elites before you start fabricating ulterior motives for him that you can then get pissed off about. You are creating a problem from a solution, that be some crazy dialectics you got right there.

McBender we live in an era where celebrities support charities, not because it's the right thing to do, it's because it's the right thing for them to do to further their career. A celebrity putting their face to a cause is very good for their brand and inexpensive publicity and the causes which David Pocock is getting behind are very trendy at the moment. Yes marriage equality and anti-homophobic bullying are fashionable trends.

Therefore it's natural for people to be cynical of a celebrities intentions of supporting a cause.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012




What exactly is your argument: that he should just shut up about things he cares about when asked? That when Q&A do a sports-themed show and ask him to be a panellist he should say no because one day he might have a book out?

You have some weird logic.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

That when Q&A do a sports-themed show and ask him to be a panellist he should say no because one day he might have a book out?


He wouldnt have been considered for the Q & A panel spot without his previous comments on same sex marriage. Look, just go and buy his book will you (pre-order the second one while you are there)

Phazz

Phazz said on the 13th Aug, 2012



The same could be said for porn, magazines, nightclubs that have go go dancers and movies such as Magic Mike.

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012

^ You're right, but few of us assume that the porn-stars and go go dancers love us.

Phazz

Phazz said on the 13th Aug, 2012



The gay porn industry is worth how much?

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

Pocock's book costs $30 but he charges $10 extra for his signature in it. He also sells boots.

Ben Cohen and his wife sells calendars and T-shirts for $35 and underwear for $38. He also organised a Mediterranean cruise so the gays could be photographed with him for a few thousand dollars.

I'm assuming the mastermind behind Pocock is the PR manager asking a question at the 34 minute mark in this clip from last Monday's QnA.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3551534.htm

Can you provide evidence of those things?

Even if they were commercially benefiting from their LGBTI stances it doesn't prove they don't hold those beliefs anyway.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

He probably wont need us then. I think we are just needed as the initial launching pad.
Clearly you have no problem with being used ......

I'll wait to feel used when there is proof that he is shallow and only supporting these views for the benefit of his finances. Feel free to be as you are.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

McBender we live in an era where celebrities support charities, not because it's the right thing to do, it's because it's the right thing for them to do to further their career. A celebrity putting their face to a cause is very good for their brand and inexpensive publicity and the causes which David Pocock is getting behind are very trendy at the moment. Yes marriage equality and anti-homophobic bullying are fashionable trends.

Therefore it's natural for people to be cynical of a celebrities intentions of supporting a cause.

1. He's not a celebrity.

2. I'm sure there are cynically motivated celebrities who think only of their bank balance.

3. Perhaps he is a cynically motivated public individual but there's no proof so I prefer to believe people until there is a reason not to.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

You're probably still waiting for "proof" that martin bormann is dead, and not still alive and on the run in south america

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012



"Finding Gay Love in strange places'
http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=578683#post578683

Here are some others who used us as 'launching pads"
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/11/05/839068/David-Campbell-420x0.jpg
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1164101293/Bette_Yellow_cropped.JPG

.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



What being captain of the Wallabies not enough? Nor the fact that he is a Zimbabwean expat? Nor his charitable foundation? Nor his stance on the need for climate change action?

Nah, you're right, it's just because of his support for LGBTI equality that he was offered the guest role. Only people who are avowed supporters of LGBTI rights are ever asked to be on Q&A as guests.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012




What? Go buy yourself a tin-foil hat and invent yourself some more conspiracies so that you can feel bad about them, which paradoxically, seems to make you feel good.

Top market the synergy market, plenty of growth.

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012

^
Mc Bender, have you heard about this method of argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

"Finding Gay Love in strange places'
http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=578683#post578683

Here are some others who used us as 'launching pads"
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/11/05/839068/David-Campbell-420x0.jpg
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1164101293/Bette_Yellow_cropped.JPG

.

You're proving nothing except that you'd rather believe the worst in people rather than their better angels.

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012



OMG! Are you Catholic? It's pointless having a rational discussion with a Catholic.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012

^
Mc Bender, have you heard about this method of argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I have but you obviously don't understand it because it applies to the way you are arguing, not to me.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012



In terms of profile of sports people in australia, he would rank about 67th on the list. So clearly he is the instant choice to be on a Q & A sports panel.....

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Aug, 2012

** adds another to my Ignore List**

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



This statement shows you know fuck all about Australian, and world, sport.

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Pathetic. Someone disagrees with your reductio ad absurdum arguments so you put them on ignore.

I say: go right ahead.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Well im waiting be be enlightened by you barron von sportalot...

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012

Rugby in australia has been declining in profile ever since australia hosted the world cup in 2003. Add to that a poorly performing australin team for the last 4 years. Prior to this, most people would have struggled to name the person who held australian rugby captaincy (something which appears to be on high-rotation in recent times)

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



You're right rugby is on the slide and has been for a while but we still made the semis of last year's World Cup, and it will only take the Wallabies recapturing the Bledisloe to re-ignite interest in the sport.

I still think being captain of the Wallabies is pretty high-profile, not as high as it was awhile ago, but it's still up there and it's definitely higher than 67th as you put it. Rugby is still a global sport with an international tournament, which last year's World Cup proved, that the younger rugby nations were improving significantly.

It's got much higher global exposure than the League World Cup that's for sure.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 13th Aug, 2012


I still think being captain of the Wallabies is pretty high-profile

It has been in the past when people like john eales and nick farr-jones had massive public profiles in australia. Australia has gone through a few captains in the last few years, which had added to the relative anonymity of pocock as captain (who became captain after the then captain. horwill was injuired) i say again, aside from his current foray into the niche gay marriage debate - alot of people would have struggled to correctly name him as wallaby captain. Id say the 67th highest profile sportsperson in australia would be reasonably accurate

McBender

McBender said on the 13th Aug, 2012



Maybe they would struggle to name him, maybe not. That's not something that is particularly verifiable. I first became aware of Pocock not because of his stance on marriage equality and LGBTI rights, but because of his charity work and his 8020Vision charity to provide sustainability for some provinces in Zimbabwe. Then for his positions on LGBTI rights and climate change action.

I'd seriously dispute the lowly ranking you give him but you can believe what you like.

And the overarching point to all of this is his sincerity regarding LGBTI issues. I believe he is sincere, and this belief will remain until proven otherwise. You on the other hand are suspicious, that's your right to believe but I'd rather be disappointed if his sincerity is proven to be commercially motivated than to be cynical of his motives from the very beginning.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 13th Aug, 2012

1. He's not a celebrity.

2. I'm sure there are cynically motivated celebrities who think only of their bank balance.

3. Perhaps he is a cynically motivated public individual but there's no proof so I prefer to believe people until there is a reason not to.

His profile as the Wallabies captain makes him a sporting celebrity.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012


And the overarching point to all of this is his sincerity regarding LGBTI issues. I believe he is sincere, and this belief will remain until proven otherwise. You on the other hand are suspicious, that's your right to believe but I'd rather be disappointed if his sincerity is proven to be commercially motivated than to be cynical of his motives from the very beginning.

bashar al-assad is still waiting for proof from the UN that he is massacring his own citizens. Most people have used their better common sense and arrived at that conclusion already.
I have no intention of being used as a step-ladder by pocock, or piggy-backing him all the way to the bank. You're just too silly to join the (quite obvious) dots

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 14th Aug, 2012

He must be legit.
I mean he has the word " cock" in his name

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 14th Aug, 2012

You people are so cynical.

No one would use gay marriage as a PR stunt.
I just don't believe it, cos that would mean- people that had gone on record for saying stupid, ignorant and hateful things- would also be jumping on the band wagon. And I haven't seen any proof of that at all. None. Zero. Nada

"SHE'S been a vocal gay rights activist Down Under and now we know why.

The soon-to-be Mrs Brian McFadden, Irish model Vogue Williams, turned out in her native Dublin yesterday for a marriage equality rally in support of her gay sister Amber.

The Dancing With The Stars contestant - who will marry McFadden in Italy next month - praised her little sis in a speech before the 4000 marchers.

"I remember when Amber came out and she was so nervous," Williams said.

"It upsets me to know we are both citizens of this country and don't have the same civil rights.

"I can get married as many times as I like. Sure, look at my Brian. He's going to round two and if he doesn't behave there'll be round three."

McFadden was previously married to former pop star Kerry Katona, and their two daughters - Molly and Lilly-Sue - will be the flower girls when he weds Williams in Florence on September 2."

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/12/07/1226216/623967-williams-mcfadden.jpg


The problem with some people is- you think " thinking" is respected- but where are the abs I ask. WHERE ARE THE ABS

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012

bashar al-assad is still waiting for proof from the UN that he is massacring his own citizens. Most people have used their better common sense and arrived at that conclusion already.
I have no intention of being used as a step-ladder by pocock, or piggy-backing him all the way to the bank. You're just too silly to join the (quite obvious) dots

When you use sadistic mass-murderers to try and underscore your point I can't take you seriously. And while you keep using that terrible analogy you still haven't, not once, shown that Pocock isn't a serious and sincere supporter of LGBTI rights. You keep using seriously flawed logic to suggest that because Assad is a lying, murderous dictator who denies being a lying, murderous dictator this somehow proves that Pocock is cynically manipulating his support for LGBTI rights for commercial gain.

You saying that this is his motive doesn't constitute proof. Yet I'm the one being silly.

And even if Pocock was engaging on the issues I've outlined with cynical motives, something I would find deplorable (but not necessarily detrimental to the causes he is allegedly phonily supporting), he wouldn't personally be using you: it makes you sound like an egoist with a victim mentality.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012



When you say you need "proof" when its staring you right in the face, i cant take you seriously

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012



It's staring me in the face is it? What is this obvious proof I am too blind to see?

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012



You want me to re-post my previous posts? I dont think samesame allows that. Try reading through them doofus

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012



All your posts consist of nothing more than you alleging some form of cynical manipulation by Pocock for commercial gain: this isn't evidence.

Saying something repeatedly, over and over again, doesn't make what is being said true. It just means you are repeating something over and over again.

The moon is pink.
The moon is pink.
The moon is pink.
The moon is pink.
The moon is pink.
The moon is pink.

Have a look-see, I've just proved the moon is pink.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012



Thats the whole point you fool! Are you telling me that after all this time, you are just starting the grasp this concept?

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012



Can't be fucked dude: I've been arguing that I require some proof or evidence and you tell me to re-read your posts, which implies you have posted something more than just your allegations, now you suddenly do a triple-twist with an inward tuck, and hey presto, suddenly all you've been really saying is that what you are arguing is that you are just making unsubstantiated allegations.

I'm done.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 14th Aug, 2012

Can't be fucked
I'm done.

You're just not trying hard enough.

http://www.j-14.com/Sammi.jpg

And you're not done- until Sammi says so.

*snaps a "z"

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012

You're just not trying hard enough.

http://www.j-14.com/Sammi.jpg

And you're not done- until Sammi says so.

*snaps a z

You're pink. End of argument.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012

Can't be fucked dude: I've been arguing that I require some proof or evidence and you tell me to re-read your posts, which implies you have posted something more than just your allegations, now you suddenly do a triple-twist with an inward tuck, and hey presto, suddenly all you've been really saying is that what you are arguing is that you are just making unsubstantiated allegations.

I'm done.

By "proof", you mean pocock coming out and actually admitting that he has been using this issue as a public profile leg-up. If you think ANYONE would ever admit to that, then you are as silly as i suspect you are. If we have to wait for someone to admit something before it is concluded of them, then we better release about 90% of the states prisoners.
You were done the moment you weren't able to put two and two together.

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012

By "proof", you mean pocock coming out and actually admitting that he has been using this issue as a public profile leg-up. If you think ANYONE would ever admit to that, then you are as silly as i suspect you are. If we have to wait for someone to admit something before it is concluded of them, then we better release about 90% of the states prisoners.
You were done the moment you weren't able to put two and two together.

Provide some evidence that Pocock doesn't have gay friends for whom he isn't supporting their rights, or that his actions contradict his words, and I might believe you. Otherwise all you're doing is smearing someone because you seem to think it's impossible that he might actually have true convictions and is just some hollowman out to score the filthy lucre by cashing in on the pink dollar.

Surely it's incumbent on you to substantiate your claims when you are the one making them.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, can't believe I got sucked back in.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012

Provide some evidence that Pocock doesn't have gay friends for whom he isn't supporting their rights, or that his actions contradict his words, and I might believe you. Otherwise all you're doing is smearing someone because you seem to think it's impossible that he might actually have true convictions and is just some hollowman out to score the filthy lucre by cashing in on the pink dollar.


That just shows how slow you are - i never said he was cashing on in the pink dollar, i said he is using what has become a fashionable issue, to build his marketable public profile

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012



Good grief! Semantics!

Ok, but it is still incumbent on you if you are going to smear Pocock, and that is what you are doing, for you to at least substantiate your allegations.

Really done now.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012

Good grief! Semantics!

Ok, but it is still incumbent on you if you are going to smear Pocock, and that is what you are doing, for you to at least substantiate your allegations.

Really done now.

The results speak for themselves - a relatively obscure sportsman making an appearance on Q & A, parroting what the producers wanted him to say, after laying the foundations for the appearance with previous comments on the issue, knowing full-well that niche sections of the media would embrace him and give him a platform to promote himself.
You were always done.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 14th Aug, 2012

Good grief! Semantics!



I thought the semantics were when you spent all that time trying to insist that he was slightly higher than the 67th most recognisable sportsperson in australia.....

McBender

McBender said on the 14th Aug, 2012

http://blog.hubspot.com/Portals/53/images/charlie-sheen-winning.png

mark_

mark_ said on the 15th Aug, 2012

Is coming out the closet becoming a trend? or 走 出 衣 柜 成 为 一 种 趋 势 ? 或

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0m-uZTQOtA&feature=player_embedded

JayTee

JayTee said on the 23rd Aug, 2012

The results speak for themselves - a relatively obscure sportsman making an appearance on Q & A, parroting what the producers wanted him to say, after laying the foundations for the appearance with previous comments on the issue, knowing full-well that niche sections of the media would embrace him and give him a platform to promote himself.
You were always done.

LW, you are just too cynical on this issue. Believe it or not there ARE straight people out there who support us.

It's a nicer world when you give people the benefit of the doubt.

kngo6803

kngo6803 said on the 23rd Aug, 2012

Is coming out the closet becoming a trend? or 走 出 衣 柜 成 为 一 种 趋 势 ? 或

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0m-uZTQOtA&feature=player_embedded

I don't get why this is bilingual XD

mark_

mark_ said on the 23rd Aug, 2012

^
It's bilingual to reflect the cross-cultural nature of the videoclip

kngo6803

kngo6803 said on the 24th Aug, 2012

^
It's bilingual to reflect the cross-cultural nature of the videoclip

After watching that, I realised that it was trilingual. XD

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Jun, 2013

Mr Pocock seems to be advertising socks now. All day socks.

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Jun, 2013



Oh dear! You have put all of SameSame on ignore. :rolleyes:

There are 18 more comments. View them all