Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Maybe, but you DO have to back it up if you want people to take your point of view seriously.

NO I Don't have to back it up, as Im sure people who agree with the principle or those who understand the point im making will not require any backup.
The words as written are enougth.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Maybe, but you DO have to back it up if you want people to take your point of view seriously.

Let those who are prejudiced defend their ideas. What is it about policemen (as opposed to policewomen) wearing earrings, that means they deserve less respect than a policeman without earrings but a policewoman with earrings???

[Xaccers]

well i've shown the question to all my gay mates and none of them find it offensive.
the cocensus is that for the police to bring in a rule that affects straight and gay men, to say it is dicriminatory against gays is paranoia and suggests that any objection from straight men wanting to wear earings on duty as insignificant.
they too feel that neither gender should wear them on patrol.
your a police officer first, gay/straight/bi after

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

NO I Don't have to back it up, as Im sure people who agree with the principle or those who understand the point im making will not require any backup.
The words as written are enougth.

I apologise for the daft example, but I could say "Zendawn has an unhealthy obession with gerbils" however unless I could back it up, no-one will take it seriously. See what I mean?

I could also say that adverts for shampoo discriminates against us baldies but unless I had some effective reasoning to back it up with, nobody will listen.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

well i've shown the question to all my gay mates and none of them find it offensive.
the cocensus is that for the police to bring in a rule that affects straight and gay men, to say it is dicriminatory against gays is paranoia and suggests that any objection from straight men wanting to wear earings on duty as insignificant.
they too feel that neither gender should wear them on patrol.
your a police officer first, gay/straight/bi after

That's a fair point if the argument was for allowing both genders to wear earrings but it is only one gender that is being discriminated against. If a subset of that gender (ie gays) wanna band together then I see no reason why they shouldnt and calling them trouble makers is inflammtory language.
I would also not see a problem if lesbians (who are allowed to wear earrings) wanna complain about the discrimination on behalf of both men or gay men.
Also the fact that some gays think its innsignificant doesnt make it any less of a problem for other gays.
My analogy about blacks on buses was meant to show that some other blacks thought it wasnt a good thing to fight over too. Watch the film on sky movies about the woman who rode on the bus and see how other blacks thought it wasnt a problem. And then see how when she won the fight, How everyone thought it was worth it

Well I'm just bemused now.

I'm sorry zendawn but to borrow from one of the characters in Father Ted you are talking a*se.I'm not homophobic,I don't think policemen not being able to wear jewellery is discrimination and frankly zendawn,your attitude,language and behaviour all through this thread only go to prove that you are 'overeacting/looking for trouble'.

Goodday!

Incog

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I apologise for the daft example, but I could say "Zendawn has an unhealthy obession with gerbils" however unless I could back it up, no-one will take it seriously. See what I mean?

I could also say that adverts for shampoo discriminates against us baldies but unless I had some effective reasoning to back it up with, nobody will listen.

Well as far as the language goes, you dont have to agree with the sentance to understand it.
As for backing it up, Im sure if people were prejudiced against me, they wouldnt need any evidence to attack me for having 'an unhealthy obsession with gerbils'.
Now what 'an unhealthy obsession' means is up for debate, but most people infer from that phrase that you mean 'have sex with' its what most people call an inuendo(sp?). Double meaning.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Well I'm just bemused now.

I'm sorry zendawn but to borrow from one of the characters in Father Ted you are talking a*se.I'm not homophobic,I don't think policemen not being able to wear jewellery is discrimination and frankly zendawn,your attitude,language and behaviour all through this thread only go to prove that you are 'overeacting/looking for trouble'.

Goodday!

Incog

Yes and your language/attitude is passive/agressive/dismissive.

[Russ]

I give up

[Xaccers]

if a group of men complain because it is sexist that is one thing.
but for a group to claim this is discrimination against gay men, when it is clearly not, is paranoia at best, overreacting/trouble making at worst.

So do I! Mainly because I'm now even more confused.You are still wrong though and no matter how you try to confuse you will always be wrong.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So do I! Mainly because I'm now even more confused.You are still wrong though and no matter how you try to confuse you will always be wrong.

Nice passive/aggressive play there. Accusing me of trying to use the tactic of confusion in order to win an argument is very poor.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

if a group of men complain because it is sexist that is one thing.
but for a group to claim this is discrimination against gay men, when it is clearly not, is paranoia at best, overreacting/trouble making at worst.

There does not have to be 'intent' for an act to be discriminatory.
By definition one subset of a major group has been discriminated against. If that subset have a strong enougth group identity to want to band together then I dont see that as a problem.

P.s. I do think the sexist argument is stronger than the antigay argument in this case.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Accusing me of trying to use the tactic of confusion in order to win an argument is very poor.

OK, that's enough, this thread is going nowhere. It's a shame I'm having to close it as it could have been a lot more interesting.