Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[manu1959]

As my missive inferred, have you ever given any thought to why the “men” here would so fiercely defend churches that regard their mothers, wives, and daughters as mere sperm receptacles and Christian incubators? Or to the mindset of the brood mares who so passively submit to their nauseaous "Saturday Night Special" sexual invasion?

you have men issues huh...........

 

[Larkinn]

Ahh but we should take as absolute truth the claims of the family?

When did I claim this? And I'd like it when I claimed it in reality, not in your delusional mind.

 

[Larkinn]

It doens't require Christian brainwashing to know that homosexuality isn't normal. A simple biology class with take care of any misconception on that part.

We've gone over this. Either you are using an incorrect defintion of normality, or nobody is "normal".

The people of the church have a right, by law, to believe what they want. The homosexual does NOT have a right by law, to force a church that's belief's are in direct conflict with his lifestyle to perform a service for him.

Thanks for joining the circle jerk and stating the belief which pretty much everyone in this thread has already said, some 10 times or so by now.

The stupidity here is in that in his eulogy, someone feels it's important to point out that he was gay.

And your stupidity in this sentence is assuming that the only way to tell someone is gay is to point out that he was gay. What do you think they are going to say? "By the way...Cecil was a flaming homosexual". Rather when they say "he is survived by..." one of those people will be his male partner. Or do you often go to funerals where the spouse of the deceased is never mentioned?

I have yet to go to a funeral where someone's sexual preference is mentioned as defining who and what that person is.

Nice strawman there.

And if THAT is the best one can do to define oneself ... by his/her deviant sexual preference ... then one has wasted a lot of natural resources for "X" number of years being worthless to society.

So, despite the fact that Cecil spent many years in the armed forces, its not that, nor his actions, nor what he did in life which makes him worthwhile or worthless to society....no its how he defined himself.

 

[Gunny]

I actually agree with everything that you said in this post except that I question your last paragraph. Do we actually know that the family wanted to celebrate the man’s sexual preference or merely mention it and show a picture of him with his partner? If a funeral service or memorial service says that the deceased person left behind his wife and shows a picture of him with his wife, does that mean that heterosexuality defined him? Also one’s being a homosexual does not make him a wasted lot of natural resources being worthless to society. Are people who can’t reproduce a waste to society? Are people who choose not to reproduce a waste to society? Besides, there are adoption centers, sperm banks and surrogate mothers for those who want children. Think of those people who create children and then just abandon them to the state. There are the irresponsible fathers who go around making children just to abandon them. Those are more of a waste to society than is someone who happens to have a sexual interest in one of the same sex. I imagine that the person in question was a productive member of society who worked hard and paid his taxes and was an asset to society – particularly to friends and family members who loved him.

You missed the point of what I said. If it is someone's sexual preference that defines them as a human being, then yes, IMO, that person IS a waste of natural resources.

I did NOT say the person was a waste of natural resources because of his sexual preferences.

The funerals I have attended; which, do not equate to ALL funerals, if a picture was present, it was of the deceased alone.

Let's go a step further, hypothetically. You are the deceased. Is it your last wish to have a funeral service performed by a church that's doctrine does not approve of and/or condemns your chosen lifestyle?

I'd as soon be tossed in the nearest dumpster as have a Muslim perform MY funeral service.

Then there's the fact of who this funeral service is REALLY for. It isn't for the dead. He doesn't give-a-damn. It's for the living; which, I personally find ridiculous.

 

[Gunny]

We've gone over this. Either you are using an incorrect defintion of normality, or nobody is "normal".



Thanks for joining the circle jerk and stating the belief which pretty much everyone in this thread has already said, some 10 times or so by now.



And your stupidity in this sentence is assuming that the only way to tell someone is gay is to point out that he was gay. What do you think they are going to say? "By the way...Cecil was a flaming homosexual". Rather when they say "he is survived by..." one of those people will be his male partner. Or do you often go to funerals where the spouse of the deceased is never mentioned?



Nice strawman there.



So, despite the fact that Cecil spent many years in the armed forces, its not that, nor his actions, nor what he did in life which makes him worthwhile or worthless to society....no its how he defined himself.

My definition of normal is per the dictionary, and trying to dissect the word to suit your agenda is nothing more than an attempt at deflection and smokescreen.

Matter of fact, as I read over your response, I see absolutely NOTHING of substance from you. Bullshit personal attacks in lieu of a real argument? Why am I NOT surprised?

So people who agree on the rights of the church are a "circle jerk" because you don't agree with them? Nice.

 

[Larkinn]

My definition of normal is per the dictionary, and trying to dissect the word to suit your agenda is nothing more than an attempt at deflection and smokescreen.

You use the word constantly and have never defined it. So please, define it for me Gunny and explain why its so patently obvious that homosexuals are so abnormal.

Matter of fact, as I read over your response, I see absolutely NOTHING of substance from you. Bullshit personal attacks in lieu of a real argument? Why am I NOT surprised?

And why am I surprised that you "missed" the substance in my post? I guess I should be used to you being a lying piece of shit when it comes to this topic by now.

 

[Larkinn]

So people who agree on the rights of the church are a "circle jerk" because you don't agree with them? Nice.

Try reading the fucking thread. I've said numerous times, and I've said directly to YOU in the past, that I do agree with them. Its stupid because you are "arguing" a point nobody is arguing against.

Quotes from me in this thread.

Then I would like you to acknowledge, here and now, that I NEVER said they should be forced to do anything. Since I've said it over and over, and you and others continually lie and imply that I am saying they should be forced to do something.

Cocky...I've said numerous times the Church had a right to do what it did.

Besides the fact, you obviously missed me and others saying about 30 times now that the church was in its rights to prohibit mention of homosexual activity at its funerals, but it was wrong to do so.

Completely possible. Which is why I can, as I've said oh I don't know 20 times now, disagree with their decision without in ANY WAY wanting to remove their ability to make that decision.

Said To GunnyL

The fact that you accused me of infringing on their freedom of speech despite me repeatedly saying both this was not a free speech issue AND they have the right to say/do what they did is proof of your failure of judgement in this particular issue.

 

[Gunny]

You use the word constantly and have never defined it. So please, define it for me Gunny and explain why its so patently obvious that homosexuals are so abnormal.



And why am I surprised that you "missed" the substance in my post? I guess I should be used to you being a lying piece of shit when it comes to this topic by now.

You shouldn't be surprised ... I can't miss what doesn't exist.

The fact that YOU call me a lying piece of shit only reinforces that I am right. You just got no game.

 

[Larkinn]

You shouldn't be surprised ... I can't miss what doesn't exist.

The fact that YOU call me a lying piece of shit only reinforces that I am right. You just got no game.

Yes, its me who has no game, not you who is attempting to claim that I disagree with a position I've suppoted at least 10 times now in this thread. What a surprise that, again as per your usual tactics, you ignore the substance in my post. Not even an attempt to anwser my question about normality.

 

[Gunny]

Try reading the fucking thread. I've said numerous times, and I've said directly to YOU in the past, that I do agree with them. Its stupid because you are "arguing" a point nobody is arguing against.

Quotes from me in this thread.









Said To GunnyL

I read the thread. However, it's not hard to miss any point you may be trying to make the way you hide them so well in your trash-mouth insults.

Let's cut to the chase. Your problem begins and ends with someone -- ANYONE -- telling a homosexual "no" for any reason.

 

[Larkinn]

I read the thread. However, it's not hard to miss any point you may be trying to make the way you hide them so well in your trash-mouth insults.

I've made the point at least 10 times now. You managed to miss all of those? But yet you feel comfortable saying that there is no substance in my other posts when you fail to recognize a very simple point that I have repeated ad nauseum in this thread.

Let's cut to the chase. Your problem begins and ends with someone -- ANYONE -- telling a homosexual "no" for any reason.

If you are going to persist in making such asinine claims, don't whine when I return insults at you. This is obviously, and plainly, not the case. I, unlike you, don't think anyone should be judged on their sexuality. So when someone is told no, or yes, based on their sexuality as opposed to other reasons, I have a problem with it.

 

[Gunny]

I've made the point at least 10 times now. You managed to miss all of those? But yet you feel comfortable saying that there is no substance in my other posts when you fail to recognize a very simple point that I have repeated ad nauseum in this thread.



If you are going to persist in making such asinine claims, don't whine when I return insults at you. This is obviously, and plainly, not the case. I, unlike you, don't think anyone should be judged on their sexuality. So when someone is told no, or yes, based on their sexuality as opposed to other reasons, I have a problem with it.

Dude, get over yourself, huh? If you have to repeat it again before the thread's over, try to not have a stroke.

I'm not whining about your insults. Simply calling a spade a spade.

Now let's play YOUR game:

Feel free to quote me where I said anyone should be judged on their sexuality.

You have done nothing since coming to this board but either take my words out of context or assume on the subject of homosexuality. There's no telling you what I think because you're convinced you already know.

 

[Larkinn]

Dude, get over yourself, huh? If you have to repeat it again before the thread's over, try to not have a stroke.

Don't worry, I definitely won't have a stroke over your and others inability to read. Its is annoying, but it in no other way effects me outside of this board.

Now let's play YOUR game:

Feel free to quote me where I said anyone should be judged on their sexuality.

Prove me wrong Gunny...do you believe Cecil should NOT be judged on their sexuality? Do you think his sexuality should NOT play a part in his funeral?

You have done nothing since coming to this board but either take my words out of context or assume on the subject of homosexuality. There's no telling you what I think because you're convinced you already know.

I haven't assumed anything about your views on homosexuality. Which is why I have, unlike you, actually taken the time to ask you questions about your views to try and get you to narrow it down. Ever going to anwser the one about normality, or will you continue to ignore it?

 

[Gunny]

Don't worry, I definitely won't have a stroke over your and others inability to read. Its is annoying, but it in no other way effects me outside of this board.



Prove me wrong Gunny...do you believe Cecil should NOT be judged on their sexuality? Do you think his sexuality should NOT play a part in his funeral?



I haven't assumed anything about your views on homosexuality. Which is why I have, unlike you, actually taken the time to ask you questions about your views to try and get you to narrow it down. Ever going to anwser the one about normality, or will you continue to ignore it?

Well now, speaking of inability to read ... how many times do I have to say that his sexuality should have no play in his funeral? Meaning, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all, one way or the other.

I personally don't whether or not the church performs the ceremony. I think our culture's worship of the dead, and the corresponding booming industry that preys off of it are ridiculous in the extreme.

As I already stated, based on the beliefs of the church, and the fact the this guy himself (not his brother) was not a member of the church, the church has every right to say no.

I find it odd that this guy would want a service performed by a church that's doctrine condemns his lifestyle. Why I questioned WHO exactly is this service REALLY for? Him? Or his brother?

Normal:

1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.
3. Psychology.
a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b. free from any mental disorder; sane.
4. Biology, Medicine/Medical.
a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b. of natural occurrence.

www.dictionary.com

 

[Larkinn]

Well now, speaking of inability to read ... how many times do I have to say that his sexuality should have no play in his funeral? Meaning, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all, one way or the other.

And I responded to this point already. Most funerals mention the deceased loves ones. You wouldn't have a problem with them bringing up some guys wife...thats not endorsing hetereosexuality...but once they bring up the guys male lover, then somehow sexuality suddenly plays a role.

As I already stated, based on the beliefs of the church, and the fact the this guy himself (not his brother) was not a member of the church, the church has every right to say no.

As has been already stated, I (and everyone else) agrees with you that the church has every right to say no. Just as Joyce has the right to be a racist shithead, but that does not mean I have to agree with him or need to hold back from condemning either action.

I find it odd that this guy would want a service performed by a church that's doctrine condemns his lifestyle. Why I questioned WHO exactly is this service REALLY for? Him? Or his brother?

Well the guy is dead. The service is for him, and for his loved ones. The church offered to have the funeral there so they probably assumed his homosexuality wasn't a real issue.

Normal:

1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.
3. Psychology.
a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b. free from any mental disorder; sane.
4. Biology, Medicine/Medical.
a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b. of natural occurrence.

www.dictionary.com

So which one of these definitions do you think that homosexuality falls under the standard of abnormal?

 

[Gunny]

And I responded to this point already. Most funerals mention the deceased loves ones. You wouldn't have a problem with them bringing up some guys wife...thats not endorsing hetereosexuality...but once they bring up the guys male lover, then somehow sexuality suddenly plays a role.



As has been already stated, I (and everyone else) agrees with you that the church has every right to say no. Just as Joyce has the right to be a racist shithead, but that does not mean I have to agree with him or need to hold back from condemning either action.



Well the guy is dead. The service is for him, and for his loved ones. The church offered to have the funeral there so they probably assumed his homosexuality wasn't a real issue.



So which one of these definitions do you think that homosexuality falls under the standard of abnormal?

I have no problem with them bringing up the guy's wife and surviving family members, since they legally, are his survivors. The boyfriend has no legal standing with the state, nor any legitimate standing according to church doctrine.

You can think it wrong all you like, but that amounts to little more than your opinion. If not mentioning his homosexuality is all that church wants, I don't see the issue. Seems they're trying to help out. It's just been "no" up front from the church I grew up in.

You want to get irritated because people keep saying the church has the right, and you agree it has the right, but THAT alone stifles any argument you have to make. You keep wanting to dismiss it as not the issue, when in reality, it IS the issue.

Obviously, mentioning his homosexuality IS an issue or they would not have rescinded their offer.

You asked for a definition and I provided one. Whatever it is you think you are going to do with the definition, knock yourself out.

 

[Larkinn]

I have no problem with them bringing up the guy's wife and surviving family members, since they legally, are his survivors. The boyfriend has no legal standing with the state, nor any legitimate standing according to church doctrine.

I think its who Cecil considered to be his family that matters, not who the state considered to be his family.

You can think it wrong all you like, but that amounts to little more than your opinion. If not mentioning his homosexuality is all that church wants, I don't see the issue. Seems they're trying to help out. It's just been "no" up front from the church I grew up in.

Of course its my opinion.

You want to get irritated because people keep saying the church has the right, and you agree it has the right, but THAT alone stifles any argument you have to make. You keep wanting to dismiss it as not the issue, when in reality, it IS the issue.

Incorrect. As I pointed out before there is a very large difference between what one has the right to do and what one ought to do. In fact, if your belief system is coherent at all, you believe this as well. However another example would be that George W. Bush has the right, as a citizen and as the president of the United States, to make a speech condemning all Christians as racist pedophiles. However, I strongly believe that, while he has the right to do so, I am very very much against him actually making that speech. Merely because you have the right to do something does not mean that I can't disagree with your exercising that right.

Obviously, mentioning his homosexuality IS an issue or they would not have rescinded their offer.

Actually its unclear why they rescinded their offer. The partner claims that his homosexuality was not going to be mentioned.

You asked for a definition and I provided one. Whatever it is you think you are going to do with the definition, knock yourself out.

I am trying to determine what exactly you believe. That you seem unable to present a coherent viewpoint yourself and instead just revert to the same tired shit makes me believe that you aren't even sure yourself. Or that, perhaps, you now how bad of an argument it is. So...again, I ask you which one of those definitions proves that homosexuality is "abnormal"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think its who Cecil considered to be his family that matters, not who the state considered to be his family.



Of course its my opinion.



Incorrect. As I pointed out before there is a very large difference between what one has the right to do and what one ought to do. In fact, if your belief system is coherent at all, you believe this as well. However another example would be that George W. Bush has the right, as a citizen and as the president of the United States, to make a speech condemning all Christians as racist pedophiles. However, I strongly believe that, while he has the right to do so, I am very very much against him actually making that speech. Merely because you have the right to do something does not mean that I can't disagree with your exercising that right.



Actually its unclear why they rescinded their offer. The partner claims that his homosexuality was not going to be mentioned.



I am trying to determine what exactly you believe. That you seem unable to present a coherent viewpoint yourself and instead just revert to the same tired shit makes me believe that you aren't even sure yourself. Or that, perhaps, you now how bad of an argument it is. So...again, I ask you which one of those definitions proves that homosexuality is "abnormal"?

We have seperate sources claiming they DID plan to "celebrate" his life style. I guess I will choose to believe two independent unaffiliated sources over a biased one.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

I think its who Cecil considered to be his family that matters, not who the state considered to be his family.



Of course its my opinion.



Incorrect. As I pointed out before there is a very large difference between what one has the right to do and what one ought to do. In fact, if your belief system is coherent at all, you believe this as well. However another example would be that George W. Bush has the right, as a citizen and as the president of the United States, to make a speech condemning all Christians as racist pedophiles. However, I strongly believe that, while he has the right to do so, I am very very much against him actually making that speech. Merely because you have the right to do something does not mean that I can't disagree with your exercising that right.



Actually its unclear why they rescinded their offer. The partner claims that his homosexuality was not going to be mentioned.



I am trying to determine what exactly you believe. That you seem unable to present a coherent viewpoint yourself and instead just revert to the same tired shit makes me believe that you aren't even sure yourself. Or that, perhaps, you now how bad of an argument it is. So...again, I ask you which one of those definitions proves that homosexuality is "abnormal"?

Allow me to answer that the way the WASPS would if they ever dropped their plagiarised Romeulan cloaking device.

Buggery is abominably abnormal by Bible-God's sexually-disturbed standards.

And seeing we've had Bible standards forced upon us since the Dead Sea took sick, Christian bigots will ALWAYS have a bigger say than you in our Protestonian Empire, Larrikin.

You are making the big mistake that the mad-dogs you are trying to reason with are CAPABLE of looking at things logically and drawing their own conclusions.

These medieval-minded morons rent their minds our on a weekly basis from Pastor Flaggun at their local fruitcake Proddie cult.

You are forgetting,

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. - George Bernard Shaw

Christian, n.: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. - Ambrose Bierce

 

[Larkinn]

We have seperate sources claiming they DID plan to "celebrate" his life style. I guess I will choose to believe two independent unaffiliated sources over a biased one.

No, actually you have two separate sources citing the same person who is claiming they did plan to celebrate his lifestyle.