Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So because I didn't understand your syntax I'm biased against gays?That doesn't even make sense.

The bias is against wearing jewelry not against gays. Bias in general makes it hard to agree with anothers point of view and makes it even harder when that point of view is poorly put.

Your point of view or mine?I wasn't making any comments about gays at any point,just about the wearing of jewellery by police officers.

However I'm still having trouble understanding just what you were getting so annoyed about.Was it about bias against police or against gays,or gay police or women police officers or because you thought that Russ was biased against gays in general?Perhaps if you were a little more succinct and precise in just what you want to say I wouldn't be querying what you were saying.I genuinely DIDN'T understand what you were saying.

Incog.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by kronas

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........

Exactly.


The rule simply says that women can wear them but men can't....which is sex discrimination, not sexuality discrimination.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Your point of view or mine?I wasn't making any comments about gays at any point,just about the wearing of jewellery by police officers.

However I'm still having trouble understanding just what you were getting so annoyed about.Was it about bias against police or against gays,or gay police or women police officers or because you thought that Russ was biased against gays in general?Perhaps if you were a little more succinct and precise in just what you want to say I wouldn't be querying what you were saying.I genuinely DIDN'T understand what you were saying.

Incog.

I'm not annoyed, thats your biased view of my post. I'm expressing an opposing oppinion.

Also I didnt say you were biased against gays, again thats you reading into my post. I said you were biased against the argument in general that anyone (men or women) should wear jewelry in the police force.

Also I was implying that it would be easier for someone to read my post if they agreed with it. Easier but not easy as I admit it is badly worded.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

However I'm still having trouble understanding just what you were getting so annoyed about.Was it about bias against police or against gays,or gay police or women police officers or because you thought that Russ was biased against gays in general?Perhaps if you were a little more succinct and precise in just what you want to say I wouldn't be querying what you were saying.I genuinely DIDN'T understand what you were saying.

Seeing as Zendawn hasn't been able to bring up ONE of these supposed posts I've made in the past which 'proves' me to be homophobic, coupled together that none of the openly homosexual users of this site has ever accused me of the same, I think we can put it down to Zen misunderstanding me, and we'll knock that particular notion on the head.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

Exactly.


The rule simply says that women can wear them but men can't....which is sex discrimination, not sexuality discrimination.

Yes, and thats why the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual association is taking issue with it, in the same way that many lesbian groups stick up for feminist issues.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Yes, and thats why the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual association is taking issue with it, in the same way that many lesbian groups stick up for feminist issues.

The quotes in the article say to me that being gay and wearing an earing is part of their identity of being gay, not that the objection is against the sexual discrimination of allowing women to wear them and not men.
Personally, I too agree that neither gender of patrolling officer should wear jewelry.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Seeing as Zendawn hasn't been able to bring up ONE of these supposed posts I've made in the past which 'proves' me to be homophobic, coupled together that none of the openly homosexual users of this site has ever accused me of the same, I think we can put it down to Zen misunderstanding me, and we'll knock that particular notion on the head.

I didnt find any openenly opposed posts, but i found a few where your tone wasnt very positive or helpful. The gay tv thread 'Fight fire with fire' post showed a little bias.
Im sure many people who were not homophobic or biased against homosexuality could have come up with better titles for a thread on that article.
Like 'Police force discriminate against men, gay support group fights back'.
But then I'm openly opposed to the police so my bias would show in my choice of title.

[zendawn]

But Eastleigh-based police sergeant Julie Fry, of the Hampshire Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Resource Group, said: "We enjoy a good relationship with the force and are consulted about issues that might affect officers or police staff who are gay. "If we raised this issue with the force, I have every confidence that the matter would be taken seriously and our views would be taken into account."


The quote above shows a sensible and composed approach, notice its a female officer.
The main quote about gay culture and 'angry gays' seems to come from a conservative city councillor, who is probably trying to gain the pink vote

Originally Posted by zendawn

I'm not annoyed, thats your biased view of my post. I'm expressing an opposing oppinion.

Also I didnt say you were biased against gays, again thats you reading into my post. I said you were biased against the argument in general that anyone (men or women) should wear jewelry in the police force.

Also I was implying that it would be easier for someone to read my post if they agreed with it. Easier but not easy as I admit it is badly worded.

I merely gave my point of view about the wearing of jewellery in a vigorous and physically demanding job.How is that being biased?It is an opinion,no more than that.What male,female,gay,lesbian police wear OFF DUTY is another matter and purely their own business.After all as a teacher I have to wear suitable and appropriate clothing for work or the head will be having a word in my shell like.Why should the police be any different?

Incog.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I merely gave my point of view about the wearing of jewellery in a vigorous and physically demanding job.How is that being biased?It is an opinion,no more than that.What male,female,gay,lesbian police wear OFF DUTY is another matter and purely their own business.After all as a teacher I have to wear suitable and appropriate clothing for work or the head will be having a word in my shell like.Why should the police be any different?

Incog.

We'll I think its unfair that women teachers can wear dresses, skirts and suits without shirts and ties, while male teachers have to wear suits and ties.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zendawn

We'll I think its unfair that women teachers can wear dresses, skirts and suits without shirts and ties, while male teachers have to wear suits and ties.

Er, quit while you're behind mate.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

We'll I think its unfair that women teachers can wear dresses, skirts and suits without shirts and ties, while male teachers have to wear suits and ties.

Society dictates that a 'business-like' sense of dress is a code practised in many workplaces. It just so happens that society seems consider a man dressing appropriately for 'business' or 'work' involves a suit and tie whereas a woman in that situation is expected to wear a skirt and blouse kind of combo.

Let's not go down the road of "Men should have the right to wear a skirt if they wanted to" or this will turn in to a "Stan/Loretta" kind of scenario from Life of Brian

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Society dictates that a 'business-like' sense of dress is a code practised in many workplaces. It just so happens that society seems consider a man dressing appropriately for 'business' or 'work' involves a suit and tie whereas a woman in that situation is expected to wear a skirt and blouse kind of combo.

Let's not go down the road of "Men should have the right to wear a skirt if they wanted to" or this will turn in to a "Stan/Loretta" kind of scenario from Life of Brian

Don't you oppress me!

(sorry, really sorry, it just slipped out)

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Don't you oppress me!

(sorry, really sorry, it just slipped out)

How long has it been since we had Monty Python on this forum? A week??

Wait Coggy, don't go yet!!!!

Back on topic now.....