Gay activists punish O/D police officer

[puggymom]

The officer has free speech. He used it, Now he is suffering the consequences.

Free speech doesnt mean you are free from the consequences of that speech. That point has been made here time and again and still people dont get it.

If you are a police officer or an employee of any other organisation and expect to pass any form of a review board you had best keep your opinions on controversial subjects to yourself.

 

[BOP]

I dont agree.
If my death can cause somebody to sit down and hear the words of Christ, then my death had just a bit of meaning.

Anywhere people gather in my name, there is a church.
can you tell me who might have said that?

the funeral, at the church was a perfect place to reiterate Gods word for the benefit of those that might not have heard it, or had forgotten it.

In my opinion, if feelings were hurt, it would be the fault of those entering a church expecting to hear that they were good people, or expecting not hear Gods message.

The Church does not belong to men, it belongs to God, and the Paster/officer said the message came to him from God. I dont doubt that, and the fact that there were people that got that upset about it proves that it might just have been a message that was needed.

remember one thing.
the service is not really for the dead, their fate with God is already set and can not be changed, the service is for the living.

I certainly would not go into a gay bar expecting to hear how wonderful I was because I did not agree with their lifestyle choice, I dont see why they would go to a church looking for acceptance of their lifestyle choice.

So you're thinking that the departed, sometime prior to his demise, or the family of the departed, specifically requested that the police Sgt. condemn homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior at the memorial service/funeral?

Have you ever even been to a memorial service/funeral? You act like you don't really know what goes on at one, even though you apparently do realize what the purpose of the service is ("...not really for the dead....").

Just as it would a) serve no good purpose, and b) would be at least in very poor taste to villify the person for whom the memorial/funeral is being held, it also serves no good purpose, and is in equally bad taste to preach against the eulogizer's favorite sin-du-jour.

Based only on the information that we've been presented (in the article), the eulogizer made a memorial service for a shipmate all about the eulogizer by turning it into a regular church-service sermon against the evils of homosexuality. What comfort did that bring to the living? What purpose did that serve, other than a forum with a captive for the Sgt/pastor to preach a sermon? Answer: it served no good purpose. Even your own book states that there is a time and a place for everything. Let me know if you need chapter and verse.

 

[Dork]

I dont agree.
If my death can cause somebody to sit down and hear the words of Christ, then my death had just a bit of meaning.

Anywhere people gather in my name, there is a church.
can you tell me who might have said that?

the funeral, at the church was a perfect place to reiterate Gods word for the benefit of those that might not have heard it, or had forgotten it.

In my opinion, if feelings were hurt, it would be the fault of those entering a church expecting to hear that they were good people, or expecting not hear Gods message.

The Church does not belong to men, it belongs to God, and the Paster/officer said the message came to him from God. I dont doubt that, and the fact that there were people that got that upset about it proves that it might just have been a message that was needed.

remember one thing.
the service is not really for the dead, their fate with God is already set and can not be changed, the service is for the living.

I certainly would not go into a gay bar expecting to hear how wonderful I was because I did not agree with their lifestyle choice, I dont see why they would go to a church looking for acceptance of their lifestyle choice.

Well said. Amen!

 

[Merlin99]

No, I'm not making it straight v. gay. Quite the opposite! I am making it about the act. The act is what the guy was preaching about. What you are missing is someone can be gay, but never act on that. There is no moral question there. The police officer was preaching against somone who engages in sexual contact with somone of the same gender.

You didn't ask the question "what if the guy preached against an act" You made it about someone elses race. That is where the apples and oranges come in. A person can be gay, but choose not to engage in homosexual acts.

You wanted to throw in a clear divisive issue. Of course we as police officers couldn't put someone down for their race. I would hope no police officer has negative feelings about someone of a different race, but I know that can't be possible. However, if someone spoke out against a group based on their race they shouldn't be representing a law enforcement agency!

I don't know if I'm just not geting the point across to you or are you intentionally missing it. I don't care if it was the act or the thought or the going to hell aspect of it. Two ideas are presented, are both free speech or just the ones you agree with. These ideas could be, should police not be allowed in coffee shops, are hybrids vehicles good for the environment, or should mentally retarded people be allowed to own guns. It really doesn't matter if one of the ideas is about genetics and the other is about morality.

 

[bcp]

So you're thinking that the departed, sometime prior to his demise, or the family of the departed, specifically requested that the police Sgt. condemn homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior at the memorial service/funeral?

Have you ever even been to a memorial service/funeral? You act like you don't really know what goes on at one, even though you apparently do realize what the purpose of the service is ("...not really for the dead....").

Just as it would a) serve no good purpose, and b) would be at least in very poor taste to villify the person for whom the memorial/funeral is being held, it also serves no good purpose, and is in equally bad taste to preach against the eulogizer's favorite sin-du-jour.

Based only on the information that we've been presented (in the article), the eulogizer made a memorial service for a shipmate all about the eulogizer by turning it into a regular church-service sermon against the evils of homosexuality. What comfort did that bring to the living? What purpose did that serve, other than a forum with a captive for the Sgt/pastor to preach a sermon? Answer: it served no good purpose. Even your own book states that there is a time and a place for everything. Let me know if you need chapter and verse.

You hit on a major problem for discussing this issue on a forum.
we dont know exactly what he said in that sermon, we only know that he mentioned the act of homosexuality as one that would warrant condemnation.
One thing he said out of an unknown number are what is being discussed, not how he said it, or how he presented it.
we dont know what the family wanted, or what the reason was.

What we do know is that he read the words of the Bible. How long before the Bible is banned? the way the homos work, I would not be surprised if this was their step one in that goal

If the family had question about this mans salvation, and the pastor were to have read off all of the things that the Bible says are wrong to be, and then he stated that the deceased were non of these, that would not be wrong.

if on the other hand he would have been having a nice sermon and then out of the blue he went Jerry Falwell on their asses that might be another story all together.

we just dont know what was said and how it was presented.

My assumption that he read from the Bible leaves me to think that someone in the viewing crowd had some reason to think they might be getting cut out from the riches of the earth.

Im fat, should I be insulted at people that talk about and enter into physical competitions?

 

[Merlin99]

I dont agree.
If my death can cause somebody to sit down and hear the words of Christ, then my death had just a bit of meaning.

Anywhere people gather in my name, there is a church.
can you tell me who might have said that?

the funeral, at the church was a perfect place to reiterate Gods word for the benefit of those that might not have heard it, or had forgotten it.

In my opinion, if feelings were hurt, it would be the fault of those entering a church expecting to hear that they were good people, or expecting not hear Gods message.

The Church does not belong to men, it belongs to God, and the Paster/officer said the message came to him from God. I dont doubt that, and the fact that there were people that got that upset about it proves that it might just have been a message that was needed.

remember one thing.
the service is not really for the dead, their fate with God is already set and can not be changed, the service is for the living.

I certainly would not go into a gay bar expecting to hear how wonderful I was because I did not agree with their lifestyle choice, I dont see why they would go to a church looking for acceptance of their lifestyle choice.

I'm not trying to sound derogatory but this sounds like the Fred Phelps school of thought.

 

[bcp]

I'm not trying to sound derogatory but this sounds like the Fred Phelps school of thought.

Fred Phelps comes uninvited and claims the death was becuase of the countries support of fags.
this guy was not only invited, but he did it with the approval of all but one malcontent homo.

and yes, you are trying to sound derogatory, I guess you think if you insult me I will suddenly put on a dress and some heels and prance on down to the next homo pride day.

 

[Merlin99]

Fred Phelps comes uninvited and claims the death was becuase of the countries support of fags.
this guy was not only invited, but he did it with the approval of all but one malcontent homo.

and yes, you are trying to sound derogatory, I guess you think if you insult me I will suddenly put on a dress and some heels and prance on down to the next homo pride day.

No I was not trying to insult you, you're one of my favorite writers, that being said if you feel the need for a dress and heels, feel free.

First, you are making a huge assumption that there was a single person with an issue at the church, just from the demographics of the people who have posted here I would guess that the numbers were signifigantly higher.

the funeral, at the church was a perfect place to reiterate Gods word for the benefit of those that might not have heard it, or had forgotten it.

Why would you believe this? A funeral isn't the place for a socio-political commentary, it is a place to remember a person who is no longer with us. When it is used to bring up controversial message like this it is just grandstanding in front of a captive audience

In my opinion, if feelings were hurt, it would be the fault of those entering a church expecting to hear that they were good people, or expecting not hear Gods message.

I'm sure he did this in a nicer way than fred, but how are the messages or delivery different.

 

[sommpd]

It's a hot button issue, period. Had he shown up and said those remarks about anyone other tham homosexuals, everyone would've pulled out their pitchforks and demanded he be fired. It just shows the hypocrisy of Americans as a whole.

He didn't make any remarks about homosexuality. Pay attention to what he said. He made remarks about homesexual acts. It is entirely possible to be a homosexual and not engage in what others believe to be imoral acts. Same as you are a hetrosexual but don't have sex so you are not engaging in what others believe to be imoral acts.

 

[sommpd]

I don't know if I'm just not geting the point across to you or are you intentionally missing it. I don't care if it was the act or the thought or the going to hell aspect of it. Two ideas are presented, are both free speech or just the ones you agree with. These ideas could be, should police not be allowed in coffee shops, are hybrids vehicles good for the environment, or should mentally retarded people be allowed to own guns. It really doesn't matter if one of the ideas is about genetics and the other is about morality.

I understand what you are saying. But like the author said, your original analogy is apples and oranges. Police officers have limited free speech, just as others entrusted in position of authority have limited free speech. I can offer my religious beliefs as long as they are not contrary to law. I can say that it is an abomination to engage in pre-martial sex, but I can't say that I have a bias against people who live together prior to getting married. I can say I don't like illegal aliens, but I can't say that latino people are criminals.

 

[Goyde]

The most interesting thing about this topic, is that in the eyes of God-which is defined in scripture- homosexual sex, like pre marital sex between male and female, is no less of a sin. There is only one unforgiven sin in the bible, this would be blasmphemy of the holy ghost. With this in mind, a lie is like murder, is like adultery, is like fornication. All sin. We has humans simply put 'levels' on the sin, but to God, the spots that taint our spirit are the same.

We all have free will given by God, to do as we choose, believe or not believe. The main issue I have ever had, is the argument that is one believes that homosexual sex is wrong, they are labelled a hater or homo-phobe, and that this is an acceptable way of thinking. And yet those who preach this 'homo-phobic' and want people to 'be open minded' are completely close minded in their agenda. To the point where they preach it to children as something they should believe and if they don't then they are labelled with a bad moniker.

I personally believe that it is a wrong, I however do not hate those who are homosexual, I in fact have several people who 'are' friends - not just me calling them that- that are homosexuals. They know my stance, and we get along just peachy and agree to disagree. I will not tolerate someone picking on them for their sexual orientation, I believe that mode of thinking is wrong, but it is ok to disagree or dislike something.

 

[Xaquin44]

I guess you think if you insult me I will suddenly put on a dress and some heels and prance on down to the next homo pride day.

you're confusing homosexuals with transsexuals. If you're going to hate, at least try to know what you're hating.

 

[sommpd]

you're confusing homosexuals with transsexuals. If you're going to hate, at least try to know what you're hating.

This post made me chuckle...

 

[donbarzini]

you're confusing homosexuals with transsexuals. If you're going to hate, at least try to know what you're hating.

Actually, you're confusing transexuals with transvestites. If you're going to correct someone, at least try to know the correct terminology.

 

[Xaquin44]

Actually, you're confusing transexuals with transvestites. If you're going to correct someone, at least try to know the correct terminology.

whooooooops!

I was still closer.

edit: wait a sec. Transsexuals would still dress as the opposite sex, so I'm right too.

not as right as I wanted to be, but still.

 

[Geek]

It's still just another excuse used to discriminate against someone who hasn't caused you any harm.

I see through it.
choice vs genetics.

if you could choose to be black maybe,,but you cant.

Are you saying people choose to be Gay?

 

[bcp]

Are you saying people choose to be Gay?

prove otherwise

 

[BOP]

He didn't make any remarks about homosexuality. Pay attention to what he said. He made remarks about homesexual acts. It is entirely possible to be a homosexual and not engage in what others believe to be imoral acts. Same as you are a hetrosexual but don't have sex so you are not engaging in what others believe to be imoral acts.

Try to keep up, sir. Why would he even do that at a, as part of a EULOGY? By so doing, the deliverer of the EULOGY was making it all about him and his belief system in front of what was basically a captive audience. He shifted the focus away from the deceased and the friends and family of the deceased, to his own agenda.

Unless (again) you or anyone else is somehow suggesting that sometime prior to his death, the decedent specifically said to his buddy, the Sgt "you know, if I happen to die before you, I want to have you deliver the eulogy, and by the way, please mention that I hated homosexuality and that people who engage in homosexual acts are going to burn in hell."

Or however that played out. Use your imagination. Because unless that was specifically a request by the dearly departed, via a will, or by his family, it had no place at a funeral/memorial service. Why anyone would think that that venue is a proper time and place to rail against the sin-du-jour is simply beyond belief.

Note that we haven't even talked about the sgt's allegedly being discriminated against for promotions and so on. There's no proof of any such thing mentioned in the article. I can only guess that if he was in fact passed up for promotions, assignments, and so on, it's probably on the basis that somebody felt that he might be a little mentally (specifically emotionally) unstable. Who does the kind of thing that he did at a funeral?

 

[BOP]

The officer has free speech. He used it, Now he is suffering the consequences.

Free speech doesnt mean you are free from the consequences of that speech. That point has been made here time and again and still people dont get it.

If you are a police officer or an employee of any other organisation and expect to pass any form of a review board you had best keep your opinions on controversial subjects to yourself.

Do I like that?? NO. but its a fact of life open your yap and someday it might come back to haunt you.

We only have the officer's word that he is suffering the consequences. What we don't have is any actual proof. I've noticed over the years that malcontents always blame everyone else for their problems and/or lack of success.

 

[Xaquin44]

prove otherwise

I already did.