Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes I believe there is racism in today's police. But to suggest there is an underground network of influential people who wish to make life as hard as possible for gays is not a suggestion I can take seriously. Perhaps tomorrow when I have more energy I'll go in to why I don't believe it.

I haven't suggested there is an "underground network" as if this is an organised conspiracy, but simply that there are number of influential people who all hold similar opinions and without even the *need* for someone to say "wouldn't it be a good idea if...?" there is an effort to, as you say, "make life as hard as possible for gays".

Verb sap.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

I haven't suggested there is an "underground network" as if this is an organised conspiracy, but simply that there are number of influential people who all hold similar opinions and without even the *need* for someone to say "wouldn't it be a good idea if...?" there is an effort to, as you say, "make life as hard as possible for gays".

I'd say this "number of influential people" could be considered an underground network after all, they're not going to publically declare their 'dislike' of gays are they?

Originally Posted by defiant

Then I suggest you disable something Russ. What people cannot put there views forward without having some ____le repping everything that move's. I dont think so

Graham can neg-rep whoever he wants - that's why we have it as a feature on the site.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'd say this "number of influential people" could be considered an underground network after all, they're not going to publically declare their 'dislike' of gays are they?



Graham can neg-rep whoever he wants - that's why we have it as a feature on the site.

Oh so If thats the point I can just keep neg repping whoever I wont hmm thanks Russ

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Nonsense! Questions can be loaded either through deliberate intent or through ignorance.

"Tell me, are you still beating your wife...?!"

What's wrong with that question?

Originally Posted by Graham

Because this is targetted towards *only* male officers and, apparently, the only male officers who wear earrings/ studs are gay, so there does seem to be just a *hint* of anti-gay bias to the decision.

Nonsense, there are many hetrosexual PCs who wear earings while off shift.
They too are affected by this, therefore either this action is not targetted at gays, or you are suggesting that the police believe any man wearing an earing is gay.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Defiant

Oh so If thats the point I can just keep neg repping whoever I wont hmm thanks Russ

Well....yes, that's why we have it. All we ask is that any comments you apply to rep points are not abusive.

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'd say this "number of influential people" could be considered an underground network after all, they're not going to publically declare their 'dislike' of gays are they?

No, of course not, but I re-iterate that "underground network" suggests some sort of organised conspiracy, instead of just a group of powerful, like-minded people.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Well....yes, that's why we have it. All we ask is that any comments you apply to rep points are not abusive.

I was extracting the unrine Russ. I dont do neg points anyway. I have + repped a few but thats it. I think the neg repping is childish myself but hey I've seen his posts so nuff said really

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, of course not, but I re-iterate that "underground network" suggests some sort of organised conspiracy, instead of just a group of powerful, like-minded people.

Again, I'd say that anyone who can make such a change to 'oppress' (my choice of word) gays in such an institution as a police force surely can be likened to an organised conspiracy?

Anyway we're going around in circles here with definitions of words, the bottom (pardon the pun) line is that I cannot see that this is a deliberate act to make life hard for gays. After all, being gay isn't just about wearing an earing while on duty is it? (Or have I been reading the wrong books???)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Graham

Do many/ any straight Policemen wear earings or only gay ones?

Was this ruling against *all* officers wearing earrings or only male ones?

I don't find it a great leap of imagination to see a connection.

As someone has remarked earlier, isn't this stereotyping gay people?

If a policeman wears an earring he must be gay? Is that right?

So which is it?

Gay (or any other people) shouldn't be stereotyped?
Gay (or any other people) shouldn't be discriminated against?

I would say both. But, as there are many people, there are many opinions. Not being gay myself, I'd say some gay people may view the topic at hand as discrimination, others may view it as stereotyping.

As another person remarked earlier. If you advocate gay rights (which I'm all for) pick your battles right. I don't think this is a good pick. But that's my opinion.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What's wrong with that question?

Excuse the large number of emoticons there, but I *CANNOT* believe that you just asked me that!!

"Are you still beating your wife" is the *CLASSIC* "loaded question" because *however* you answer it, you're going to end up in the wrong and the *only* way to answer it is *not* answer it at all!

If you answer yes, then you admit beating your wife.

If you answer no, then because of the way it's worded "are you still...?" the obvious corollary is that you may no longer be beating your wife, but you *admit* to having beaten her in the past...!!!

Nonsense, there are many hetrosexual PCs who wear earings while off shift. They too are affected by this,

No they are not because, by your own statement, it is only *off shift*!

there for either this action is not targetted at gays, or you are suggesting that the police believe any man wearing an earing is gay.

Well, yes! I think the suggestion that some senior members of the Police consider that any man wearing an earring is gay is a valid one!

Originally Posted by Russ D

Again, I'd say that anyone who can make such a change to 'oppress' (my choice of word) gays in such an institution as a police force surely can be likened to an organised conspiracy?

If you want to liken it to that, I can't stop you.

the bottom (pardon the pun) line is that I cannot see that this is a deliberate act to make life hard for gays. After all, being gay isn't just about wearing an earing while on duty is it? (Or have I been reading the wrong books???)

Is being a Sikh Police Officer "just" about wearing a turban on duty?

No, of course not, but it's a part of it...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

"Are you still beating your wife" is the *CLASSIC* "loaded question" because *however* you answer it, you're going to end up in the wrong and the *only* way to answer it is *not* answer it at all!

If you answer yes, then you admit beating your wife.

If you answer no, then because of the way it's worded "are you still...?" the obvious corollary is that you may no longer be beating your wife, but you *admit* to having beaten her in the past...!!!

Actually that's not quite correct. If you asked me that, my answer would be no because

a) I don't have a wife, and

b) I've never hit a woman.

Originally Posted by Graham

Is being a Sikh Police Officer "just" about wearing a turban on duty?

No, of course not, but it's a part of it...

Graham...a Sikh has to wear a turban, it's an essential part of their faith.

A homosexual male does not HAVE to wear an earing.

Originally Posted by danielf

As someone has remarked earlier, isn't this stereotyping gay people?

If a policeman wears an earring he must be gay? Is that right?

As I've said, I think there may well be some in the senior ranks of the Police who *do* stereotype gays in this way.

It is not *MY* stereotyping, however.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Actually that's not quite correct. If you asked me that, my answer would be no because

a) I don't have a wife,

Substitute girlfriend or other such referant as appropriate.

and b) I've never hit a woman.

Which is, as I pointed out, the only way to deal with the question, ie *not* answer it.

Graham...a Sikh has to wear a turban, it's an essential part of their faith.

A homosexual male does not HAVE to wear an earing.

No, a Sikh does not *have* to wear a turban. Their religion may *require* them to wear one, but that's not the same thing.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Which is, as I pointed out, the only way to deal with the question, ie *not* answer it.

No, my answer would be "I've never hit her".