wmw999 2,132 #26 September 20, 2010 If short skirts were a good analogy you might have answered the second part of my question. And all kinds of outside parties influence virtually all workplaces. It's no longer legal to discriminate against women or ethnic minorities. It's probably a decent assumption that most workplaces that actively discriminated stopped doing so because of legislation or pressure, and not because all of a sudden all of their employees decided they'd been wrong all that time. The Pentagon sent out a survey about this to service members. I'm assuming that will weigh significantly. I'm hoping, however, that the responses on unit impact from service members who have actually served with homosexuals is given more weight than those from service members who haven't. Simply because experience should count for something. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #27 September 20, 2010 >If your work decided it was a good idea for you to have to wear a >micro miniskirt every day, would you want to work there? Why would that be a problem? People can like whatever they want to. > I think that would be a great idea and the change to the dress code has >my vote! Ah, now THERE'S the problem. As long as people can wear microskirts if they like - no problem at all. Once you start mandating it, then yes, there's a problem. (Fortunately, no one has proposed making miniskirts - or gay marriage - mandatory.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #28 September 20, 2010 Quote>If your work decided it was a good idea for you to have to wear a >micro miniskirt every day, would you want to work there? Why would that be a problem? People can like whatever they want to. > I think that would be a great idea and the change to the dress code has >my vote! Ah, now THERE'S the problem. As long as people can wear microskirts if they like - no problem at all. Once you start mandating it, then yes, there's a problem. (Fortunately, no one has proposed making miniskirts - or gay marriage - mandatory.) If it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #29 September 20, 2010 QuoteIf it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? I'll take, "The Constitution," for $1000, Alex. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #30 September 20, 2010 >If it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove >it down their throats? The US Constitution. If your religion or sexuality offends others, should you adopt their religion/sexuality - or should they tolerate yours? Whose problem is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #31 September 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? I'll take, "The Constitution," for $1000, Alex. So in your eyes, only the minorities should have rights.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,132 #32 September 20, 2010 QuoteIf it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats?What are your thoughts on desegregation of the military by Truman? That is a pretty direct parallel, isn't it? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #33 September 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats?What are your thoughts on desegregation of the military by Truman? That is a pretty direct parallel, isn't it? Wendy P. Nope - race isn't a life style.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 September 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? I'll take, "The Constitution," for $1000, Alex. So in your eyes, only the minorities should have rights. the majority has the same right to be offensive. Can you cite the clause that says we have a right not to be offended? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,132 #35 September 20, 2010 So your being heterosexual is a lifestyle? It's not something that you were born with? Or is it just sex that's a lifestyle? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #36 September 20, 2010 QuoteSo in your eyes, only the minorities should have rights. Nope. There is no right to be comfortable about your coworker's private lives. There is, however, a right to equal protection under the law. If you're going to argue this from a rights standpoint, you really have no leg to stand on. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #37 September 20, 2010 Quote If it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? I'm going to guess that giving civil rights to blacks in the sixties was pretty offensive to the majority in the deep south. Was it correct to shove it down their throats back then?"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,132 #38 September 20, 2010 We had that discussion; Turtle's contention is that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a life condition. I happen to disagree with that. Of course, one could quibble and say that only homosexual behavior is not allowed, and that someone can be as gay as can be as long as they don't engage in any homosexual acts. I'm wondering, though -- if someone is a flaming fairy and in the military, but celibate -- are their unit really going to be OK with that? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #39 September 20, 2010 You didn't really "have that discussion". Turtle kinda bailed and didn't really answer. My question still stands. Does the majority have the right to deny rights to the minority? To address the issue of gays in the military - Should serving soldiers who are prejudiced against gays be allowed to deny gays the right to serve? There isn't a draft anymore. Noone is being forced to serve in the military. If someone really hates blacks and isn't willing to serve in the military with them, they don't have to. If someone really hates gays and doesn't want to serve in the military with them, why should it be the gay who has to leave?"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 277 #40 September 21, 2010 QuoteYou didn't really "have that discussion". Turtle kinda bailed and didn't really answer. My question still stands. Does the majority have the right to deny rights to the minority? To address the issue of gays in the military - Should serving soldiers who are prejudiced against gays be allowed to deny gays the right to serve? There isn't a draft anymore. Noone is being forced to serve in the military. If someone really hates blacks and isn't willing to serve in the military with them, they don't have to. If someone really hates gays and doesn't want to serve in the military with them, why should it be the gay who has to leave? Currently, as far as I can tell (if someone has another example, please let me know), the military is the last major American public institution where homosexuality is still not recognized/allowed. I see it as the last place homophobes can hide out -- the argument of openly gay military service being a "social experiment" is no longer valid. I think it will be interesting to see how the straight guys start to handle people spreading rumors about their sex lives that they don't like. What? That's sexual harassment? Who knew? Professional behavior is professional behavior. No one can control your thoughts, but we live in a society where your ACTIONS are judged. Personally, I don't care if the men I work with have images of me running naked through their minds, as long as I'm treated with respect and afforded the same opportunities to succeed or fail on my own merit. Keep those thoughts to yourself. Is that really too much to ask? edited for claritySee the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 September 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMight come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day. Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread. Thanks for the semantic ideologue (ideological) input, have a nice day. I'm speaking normally, not aberationally. BTW, ifteh word usage gets too complicated, use less ornate language. Indeed. BTW.... from merriam-webster: "aberationally The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." Might want to take your own advice. Yep, aberrational is a word, Aberrationally is a Bush word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #42 September 21, 2010 QuoteNot all that surprising. More and more conservatives are giving up the anti-gay (anti-GLBT actually) position now that it's becoming more accepted in society. It's easy to say that homosexuality and transsexuality are evil and wrong when no one knows any gays or transsexuals. But now that people are less afraid to be open about their sexuality, well - it's harder to tell a constituent that gays will bring the downfall of society when that constituent has gay friends and family members.Which is a good thing in my book. Tolerance always works better in the long run.the intolerable should NEVER be tolerated ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #43 September 21, 2010 >the intolerable should NEVER be tolerated ! Well, there's always Saudi Arabia, then. You won't have to tolerate much of anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #44 September 21, 2010 Quote>the intolerable should NEVER be tolerated ! Well, there's always Saudi Arabia, then. You won't have to tolerate much of anything.would i have to tolerate you ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #45 September 21, 2010 How do you define the distinction between acceptance and tolerance? I've yet to meet a politician with whom I've agreed on all points. I generally go with either the best or the least bad, and try to ignore (i.e. tolerate) their undesirable positions. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #46 September 21, 2010 QuoteQuote>If your work decided it was a good idea for you to have to wear a >micro miniskirt every day, would you want to work there? Why would that be a problem? People can like whatever they want to. > I think that would be a great idea and the change to the dress code has >my vote! Ah, now THERE'S the problem. As long as people can wear microskirts if they like - no problem at all. Once you start mandating it, then yes, there's a problem. (Fortunately, no one has proposed making miniskirts - or gay marriage - mandatory.) If it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? If they shove it down your throat, you should call the police and report a rape. If they're just doing their thing while you do your's, and neither of you are injured in the process, what's the problem? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #47 September 21, 2010 Quote Quote Quote >If your work decided it was a good idea for you to have to wear a >micro miniskirt every day, would you want to work there? Why would that be a problem? People can like whatever they want to. > I think that would be a great idea and the change to the dress code has >my vote! Ah, now THERE'S the problem. As long as people can wear microskirts if they like - no problem at all. Once you start mandating it, then yes, there's a problem. (Fortunately, no one has proposed making miniskirts - or gay marriage - mandatory.) If it is offensive to the majority, who is to say this it is correct to shove it down their throats? If they shove it down your throat, you should call the police and report a rape. If they're just doing their thing while you do your's, and neither of you are injured in the process, what's the problem? Blues, Dave Group has never been my thing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #48 September 21, 2010 QuoteHow do you define the distinction between acceptance and tolerance? I've yet to meet a politician with whom I've agreed on all points. I generally go with either the best or the least bad, and try to ignore (i.e. tolerate) their undesirable positions. Blues, Dave Acceptance is voluntary, tolerance is forced. I accept a friend, but I only tolerate someone whose presence comes with a job or other activity, and whose company I would not ever actively seek. I do not use tobacco, alcohol or drugs. So long as someone does not presume to drink before offering me a ride, blow smoke in my face or spike my drink, I am generally indifferent. There is a lot that I can accept, so long as it does not cause me harm. I accept people whose Weltanschauung (I am not sure what it is in English) differs from mine, but tolerate only to the extent that I must those who see fit to prosletyze and seek my conversion. The difference between acceptance and tolerance is a matter of what one personally finds toxic. The Irish saying puts it well: "with every man there is a line - know where it is, and never cross it." BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 September 21, 2010 QuoteWeltanschauung (I am not sure what it is in English) worldviewMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #50 September 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteWeltanschauung (I am not sure what it is in English) worldview Literally it is, I guess, but it is not entirely interchangeable. Close enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
