Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, not in the slightest, although frankly this has nothing to do with discriminating against gays, it's plain and simple sex discrimination because women can wear studs but men can't.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Now I could be reading those wrong but even you reiteration seems to prove my point.
You do infact seem to be saying it is ok to discriminate against a group based on what a minority think of them.

This is true, you did not mention sexuality, however it was implied. If this is not what you are implying then I appologise but I dont see how that makes my point any different anyway.
What might people find less approachable about a man with an earing? is it as someone said earlier that he may be considdered a thug? if so wouldnt a skinheaded woman with an earing be percieved the same way? yet there is nothing to stop that.
As I have also said in some of my other posts Im not really hung up on the anti gay side of this, that was just my example. This is discrimination pure and simple.

By the deffinition you just posted, people who are intollerent of someone for beeing different to themselves (Like how an old fashioned person may have a problem with a man wearing an earing) are Bigoted.

Intollerence of ideas that discriminate against minorities may actually be a form of bigotry, however I see it as an acceptable form if it is opposed to a form of bigotry wich actually discriminates against a small group, especially one as small minded as someone thinking (all males who wear earings are gay, or all males who wear earings are thugs), no matter how you look at it this is a misguided and silly concept.

Yes we do, just as officers of all genders shouldnt be allowed to wear earings, not just the men.

So again you say it is ok to discriminate against the minority based on the opinions of the small minded few.
I do agree they should not be allowed to wear them (For different reasons mind you) but in my opinion it should be 'One off, all off' and the female officers should not be allowed to wear them either in the interest of equality.

I never said to ignore the problem in the first place, I have repeatedly stated in this post that I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them.(This to me sounds like affirmative action rather than ignoring something)

I really cant see a good reason in any of your postings, except some people might not like it. I would like to point out that the same people may have a problem with a butch skinheaded female officer yet there is precident of discrimination against them (Lets face it, any government that tried to enforce that would be commiting political suicide due to how one sided the equality balance is at the moment).

And I do agree with the topic title, the gays do seem to be taking this personal, however as other people have pointed out its not just gays that wear them, this is discrimination against men as a gender.

Edit: I may have to repost bits of this later as I rushed it slighly since I need to leave the house in 20seconds :Peaceman:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So not a knee-jerk reaction on the part of gays who are convinced this is just a ploy to make their lives difficult?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

in this instance, its just paranoia on thier part.......

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:eek:

Kronny and the bible basher agreeing???

It could be argued that it's justifiable paranoia as I'm sure they do face direct discrimination in work....but not in this case.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

To take this back to something I said earlier, I'm saying that discrimination per se is not fundamentally wrong. Just discrimination in certain cases. UK Law recognises this, as is demonstrated in this specific instance. Differences in male/female dress are specifically allowed in the Law.

It is not what I was implying. Apology accepted. ;) It makes your point different in the context of my original post, in which I complained that this was being made a sexuality issue even though it clearly is not.

All you are doing here is interpreting the image of a policeman with an ear ring according to your own understanding, norms and assumptions. The question is not controversial to you because your subculture has grown up with men wearing ear rings. The ability to understand and resolve conflict lies in attempting to ask (and answer) these questions from the point of view of those who have the differing opinion, not answering them to your own satisfaction as if that were ample proof that you are right and they are wrong.

I don't see the necessary connection between a skinhead man with an ear ring and a skinhead woman with an ear ring. Again, you are applying your own assumptions to the situation and failing to try to understand why somebody might answer differently to you.

I'm glad you're not making sexuality the core issue. I think you and I agree that it is not. However, on the issue of 'discrimination', you are wrong. The Law says what is discrimination and what is not. In this case, the Law says that differing dress codes for men and women is not discrimination.

You draw a false conclusion here by making 'intolerance' = 'have a problem with'. They are not the same. As a Christian, I 'have a problem with' people whose faith is different to mine, as I believe my faith to have the answers to life's important questions. I wish to try to persuade people of my point of view. That is a whole world away from me being 'intolerant' of people who do not share my point of view. If I were intolerant, then I would be constantly picking religiously-motivated fights with the majority of members of this forum and finding it impossible to form friendships with them. I hope that it is obvious that this is not the case.

Intolerance is bigotry. Having a problem with someone (or with their point of view) is not.

So, you accept that bigotry is in some cases acceptable because it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue that you see as a problem (in this case, 'small-minded thinking'). Similarly, I think that discrimination is in some cases acceptable where it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue I see as a problem (in my case, people who need to trust the police and, for whatever reason, might not be able to).

Well spotted - that is the reason, although you caricature what I actually said in order to trivialise it. Trivialising a point of view is a useful substitute for countering it with a good argument. :)

This is the second time you have mentioned butch skinhead women. Frankly, I have no idea what the ruling is here. I would not be surprised if there are rules about how both male and female police officers keep their hair. If so, I would support them. As I have said all along, the need for the public to respect the police and also to find them approachable far outweighs the rights of the police officers, as pubilc servants, to express themselves while on duty.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

All the men are banned from wearing them - it has nothing to do with them being gay - no wonder people get sick of the "gay community" whinging about "discrimination" all the time.

I think any police person wearing earrings is just asking for trouble next time someone gets violent with them - ears are rather easily ripped - This is why they are banned by schools during sports.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I may get flamed for this, but I don't think that any police officer (male, female, gay or straight) should be allowed to wear earrings. As Defiant said, it is one more thing that can be used against them by people they are trying to arrest.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

In all honesty, any police officer who's duties are likely to take them into situations such as those will probably be sensible enough to remove anything like earings that could end up being ripped out. However, what about all of the desk officers, forensic officers, detectives etc whose daily duties do not involve said duties?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:erm: :disturbd:

no there is not, if the superiors initiated a stance of 'gay men cannot wear them but hetrosexuals could' then there would be good enough reason to kick up a fuss........

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thats the way I see it - Good post m8 :)

There is ( as raised before ) the safety aspect of wearing studs !

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK, maybe my original post was a bit strongly phrased, and my reasoning only applies to some Police officers.

However, I don't see how the decision (for whatever reason) is discriminating against gay men, unless the Officers claiming discrimination are claiming that a man would have to be gay to wear earrings & studs. If this is the case, then they are discriminating as there plenty of straight males who wear various kinds of jewellery. If the force is discriminating against anyone (and I don't think they are), then it is against men in general.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It has probably been said, but i'll just throw my 2 pence in anyway. I actually think its more of an insult to gays to stereotype them and say that they all wear earrings. Furthermore, I believe whatever women can do, men should be able to do as well. One world, one people, we shouldn't keep trying to keep sexes apart with differing rules. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nice to see the police applying the same standards internally as it does externally, ie double standards.
I agree with most people, earings are a safety issue in general, but if one gender can wear them, then so should the other, regardless of sexuality.
I wonder how they feel about c*ck or nipple rings ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well seeing as they're not (usually) on show, I'm sure it's not really an issue....