Fireman suspended for Gay Parade refusal

[cavalier]

Only just seen this.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Oh, and Cav? Have you been hanging out with my ex again?

We were trying to keep it quiet

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by kenod

Goodness gracious, now I'm not even heterosexual any more ... I'm "non-homosexual" (only kidding!)

A number of churches have been split over the issue. Depending on who you talk to, that is either a good thing or a bad thing.

Others are concerned about the issues of marriage, adoption, "recruitment", school curriculum, and so on.

It is not my intention to try to defend any of those positions, but do these "non-homosexuals" have a right to believe as they do?

Ok I see your point, you non-homosexual you

Firstly though, it is the issue of homosexuality that has done this damage here, not homosexuals themselves. This is not the case with smokers who, as people, damage other people, the same must be said of paedophiles.

Churches have also split over the issue of the role of women, there are still issues with the recruitment of women, there have been/still are issues over how to teach the role of women.
my goodness, the damage that women have done to us men.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ok, so then what does this "society" believe in light of our topic? Further, I don't think the issue here is the right to believe, just human rights.

Human rights depend on what we believe. If I believe marriage was ordained by God between a man and a woman only, I will not be willing to concede the right of marriage to people of the same sex. In fact, I might oppose it vociferously.

What does society believe in light of the topic of the firemen and the gay parade ... well, I think most people (including me) would say the firemen should have attended, as it was a part of their job.

However, I think the best answer came from Cav (?), who said if homophobia is an illness, then they should have been given sick leave, not the sack!

[kenod]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Ok I see your point, you non-homosexual you

Firstly though, it is the issue of homosexuality that has done this damage here, not homosexuals themselves. This is not the case with smokers who, as people, damage other people, the same must be said of paedophiles.

Churches have also split over the issue of the role of women, there are still issues with the recruitment of women, there have been/still are issues over how to teach the role of women.
my goodness, the damage that women have done to us men.

You will no doubt not be surprised that I attend a church where women do not teach/preach ... and I do think that feminism has damaged the church. Paul taught that men and women are equal; he did not teach they are the same.

I don't think we would have "the issue of homosexuality" if we did not have homosexuals. Gay activism has forced the issue on to the churches - it did not arise from internal debate.

The discussion in the churches has focused more on the authority of the Bible than it has on whether gay people are good or bad. Most people are sensible enough to realize there are good and bad homosexuals, just as there are good and bad heterosexuals.

[paul]

you may also notice from the Bible that there are deep spiritual meanings of the two sexes and marriage.

it is my opinion, backed up by over 2000 years of church tradition that according to the ancient Christian understanding and mysteries there is a meaning why a man was given certain roles and not a woman.

i beleive it was me who asked is homophobia a medical condition, of which if it is considered some kind of medical condition, then why aren't these firemen allowed to do other duties instead, or should they not be allowed to even have this job if they have this so called condition, as maybe they wouldn't if they had some condition where they were afraid of heights.

i don't beleive having a natural disgust of homosexuality is a medical condition, but moreso that homosexuality is in the same way peodphilier, beastiality maybe.

and then could we even call them medical as if they could be cured by some physical medicine.
i would think maybe of the spiritual kind.

the question really is i beleive, is am i even permitted my condition today, are these firemen, are we even allowed certain jobs if we have these feelings.
i did hear something a while back, can't remember all the details, but i think it was in italy, there was a catholic in the government who i think was not allowed a certain position because he disagreed with homosexuality.
does anyone remember it?

i can not change my feelings, i would be very much offended having to attend such a parade, i may be physically ill.
is it then right i should have to face this with such feelings, or should such with such feelings not be allowed certain jobs?

this is not about treating homosexuals fairly, but this is about having to attend their parade in such acts, there is a big difference in my opinion.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by paul

the question really is i beleive, am i even permitted my condition today, are these firemen, are we even allowed certain jobs if we have these feelings.
i did hear something a while back, can't remember all the details, but i think it was in italy, there was a catholic in the government who i think was not allowed a certain position because he disagreed with homosexuality.
does anyone remember it?

You may be referring to Dr Rocco Buttiglione who was rejected as Justice Commissioner at the EU in 2004. He had opinions about homosexuality and the role of women which many believed made him unsuitable.
http://www.acton.org/press/special/faq.php

The situation is, if you think homosexuality is wrong, you can believe it privately, but it is possible you will be discriminated against if you say it publicly.

Metro Board Member Fired for Comment on Gays
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 16, 2006;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/06/28/cstillwell.DTL

Although I have some common ground with you Scripturally, I feel that it is wrong to deny a public service to anyone. That is what I call discrimination.

My concern is that gay parades are often displays of public lewdness not tolerated by other groups.

[paul]

i don't think a public service is to be denied to anyone.

just that i think it's wrong that someone should be forced to attend such an event, even as part of their job.

because what it leads to is if you're not prepared to attend a parade of homosexuality, then you will not be able to be a fireman.

of course i don't think a fireman should not hand out a leaflet to a homosexual, this is not the case here.

this is a parade of homosexual acts.

if it was of pornography, maybe even anal sex between a man and woman, maybe even sex between family members, it's not that such people would be refused the services of the fire department, or any fireman in their job.
but to be demanded to attend such a parade as these many may refuse.
not because their wouldn't serve them in their job, but that they would not want to attend such a parade.

i would be very interested of a muslims view on this, and wonder how they would be treated.
for i see today, the goverment is trying not to be discriminate to homosexuality and islam.
what would happen in such a situation as this, would a muslim fireman be forced to attend?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by paul

you may also notice from the Bible that there are deep spiritual meanings of the two sexes and marriage.

it is my opinion, backed up by over 2000 years of church tradition that according to the ancient Christian understanding and mysteries there is a meaning why a man was given certain roles and not a woman.

i beleive it was me who asked is homophobia a medical condition, of which if it is considered some kind of medical condition, then why aren't these firemen allowed to do other duties instead, or should they not be allowed to even have this job if they have this so called condition, as maybe they wouldn't if they had some condition where they were afraid of heights.

i don't beleive having a natural disgust of homosexuality is a medical condition, but moreso that homosexuality is in the same way peodphilier, beastiality maybe.

and then could we even call them medical as if they could be cured by some physical medicine.
i would think maybe of the spiritual kind.

the question really is i beleive, is am i even permitted my condition today, are these firemen, are we even allowed certain jobs if we have these feelings.
i did hear something a while back, can't remember all the details, but i think it was in italy, there was a catholic in the government who i think was not allowed a certain position because he disagreed with homosexuality.
does anyone remember it?

i can not change my feelings, i would be very much offended having to attend such a parade, i may be physically ill.
is it then right i should have to face this with such feelings, or should such with such feelings not be allowed certain jobs?

this is not about treating homosexuals fairly, but this is about having to attend their parade in such acts, there is a big difference in my opinion.

Homophobia is considered an irrational fear of homosexuals due to possible repressed homosexual tendencies on the part of the patient. Do you really want to play that card?

Also, your Bible is your holy writ, your church caters to your religion, it is not mine nor is it everyone elses. Therefore what it says is not relevant to this discussion.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Homophobia is considered an irrational fear of homosexuals due to possible repressed homosexual tendencies on the part of the patient. Do you really want to play that card?

Very naughty, P ... are you trying to scare the pants off him ... you know that is a highly suspect theory ... and the word "fear" is completely inappropriate ... the word is "hate" ... which the church turns into "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Also, your Bible is your holy writ, your church caters to your religion, it is not mine nor is it everyone elses. Therefore what it says is not relevant to this discussion.

The basis for a person's opinion is always relevant ... would you mind if I quoted Ghandi?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

Very naughty, P ... are you trying to scare the pants off him ... you know that is a highly suspect theory ... and the word "fear" is completely inappropriate ... the word is "hate" ... which the church turns into "hate the sin, love the sinner".



The basis for a person's opinion is always relevant ... would you mind if I quoted Ghandi?

Umm so how is the word "fear" inappropriate while discussing a phobia

And no, please quote whatever you wish as long as you don't use that quote as a basis for argument. That way we won't think you are trying to pull of an appeal to authority.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Umm so how is the word "fear" inappropriate while discussing a phobia

because it is based on the fallacy that anyone strongly opposed to homosexuality is a "closet" homosexual

And no, please quote whatever you wish as long as you don't use that quote as a basis for argument. That way we won't think you are trying to pull of an appeal to authority.

We are all our own final authority, but a source that has been respected by millions for thousands of years must carry a little more weight than the thoughts that just happen to pop into our heads.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

because it is based on the fallacy that anyone strongly opposed to homosexuality is a "closet" homosexual



We are all our own final authority, but a source that has been respected by millions for thousands of years must carry a little more weight than the thoughts that just happen to pop into our heads.

Since a theory is only a postulate how is it then deemed a fallacy? It might be right or wrong , or it might only have certain applications and isn't to be thought of as a universal truth.
Now , what IS a fallacy of argument is assuming something is right because it is old. Argumentum ad antiquatem. And just because millions of people have used that authority still doesn't make it right or true. Argumentum ad numerum

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Since a theory is only a postulate how is it then deemed a fallacy? It might be right or wrong , or it might only have certain applications and isn't to be thought of as a universal truth.

a theory without some substantial evidence is worthless - homophobia is not a theory, it is an opinion, and a biased one at that - the word is frequently used to try to shut people up ... in some contexts it is a form of abuse, just as bad as the hateful words homosexuals have been called.

Now , what IS a fallacy of argument is assuming something is right because it is old. Argumentum ad antiquatem. And just because millions of people have used that authority still doesn't make it right or true. Argumentum ad numerum

... but it certainly makes it worth serious consideration!

[Quahom1]

Back to the original point of the thread:

Public servants, were ordered to participate in a government "sanctioned" event that went against their personal beliefs. However, their job description did not include (representing the government at functions from time to time as ordered by the government). Clearly they had a lawsuit that would have decimated the local government's cause (and the lobyist's intent)...but they chose not to follow that line.

Unfortunate that they did not know what their contract said and didn't say they had to do, on behalf of the government they worked for.

Equally unfortunate that the government would deliberately jeopardise the safety of its charges, for a political statement, by suspending those that swore with their lives to physically keep the people safe...simply because they did not agree with the opinion of those "in" governmental seats...

If it were me, and the citizens of the community didn't care...I'd move, and fight fires in a town where the citizens did care...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kenod

a theory without some substantial evidence is worthless - homophobia is not a theory, it is an opinion, and a biased one at that - the word is frequently used to try to shut people up ... in some contexts it is a form of abuse, just as bad as the hateful words homosexuals have been called.



... but it certainly makes it worth serious consideration!

Well, since it was brought up in the discussion I thought it prudent to open up the whole issue of homophobia and either keep it as a good argument why Paul might or might not want to continue using it. And can you offer any substantive sources that have successfully refuted the idea of internalized homophobia?

As for the serious consideration, that has been done, and done away with as far as I am concerned. Using any religious texts (including my own) to modify the behavior of the human race simply isn't workable.