Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[mattskramer]

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.

Okay. I think that I see your point. Did he define himself as a human being who just happens to be gay or did he define himself as a gay human being? Is that what you are driving at? I think that I then agree with you. If someone nearly exclusively defines himself on the bases of his sexual preference (homosexual or heterosexual) it is a waste.

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

I recently attended the funeral of a great friend. The service included pictures of him but it also included scrapbooks and photo albums. Those books had pictures of him with his wife and friends. It was a pectoral history of his life and accomplishments.

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.

Okay. I see your point. Perhaps the deceased person’s family were not members of any other religious organization and did not know of anyone else who might be lenient and provide such a service. Anyway, I’m just speculating. I would rather have a church that approves of my lifestyle perform the ceremony provided I know of such a church.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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,

Pray tell why must WE "look at things logically" when you liberals almost never look at things logically - except when you can use it to your advantage of course. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

And, anyhow, what exactly IS the "logic" to support Larkinn's contention that the church ought to celebrate the guy's homosexuality? A church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they see fit.

Also, you liberals support sexual "preferences" - so why is it you don't support Christian sexual "preferences" too? Or are you just the pansy-patsy two-faced bigots we always figured you were?

 

[jillian]

Pray tell why must WE "look at things logically" when you liberals almost never look at things logically - except when you can use it to your advantage of course. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

And, anyhow, what exactly IS the "logic" to support Larkinn's contention that the church ought to celebrate the guy's homosexuality? A church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they see fit.

Also, you liberals support sexual "preferences" - so why is it you don't support Christian sexual "preferences" too? Or are you just the pansy-patsy two-faced bigots we always figured you were?

Gee... there's an argument. Decide what other people do (incorrectly, of course) and then use that to justify your own behavior. Loverly.

By the by, there is no such thing as "you libs"...... I know how you hate tolerance, but really, that's a human value... an American value... so sorry it's one that's alien to you.

Oh yeah... and, ONCE AGAIN, since you seem to have not read the posts. No one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That doesn't mean that they did the CORRECT thing or that any of us have to pretend it WAS the correct thing.

As for bigots, I think we have more than enough of those on this board without someone like you assigning that trait to people who don't possess it.

You follow all that?

 

[Larkinn]

Pray tell why must WE "look at things logically" when you liberals almost never look at things logically - except when you can use it to your advantage of course. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Lmao...you basically just said "well if you get to look at things incorrectly, than we can as well! So there!". What an asinine, childish, and stupid argument.

And, anyhow, what exactly IS the "logic" to support Larkinn's contention that the church ought to celebrate the guy's homosexuality?

That institutions in this country should be supporting homosexuals, not marginalizing them.

A church has the right to interpret the Bible any way they see fit.

....

Ok, this lack of reading comprehension is sort of blowing me away. Re-read the thread. If you magically happen to miss the 10 or 20 times that I've said that they do have the right to do what they did, than try reading it again, slower this time.

Also, you liberals support sexual "preferences" - so why is it you don't support Christian sexual "preferences" too? Or are you just the pansy-patsy two-faced bigots we always figured you were?

Just curious...what Christian sexual "preferences" do you think liberals don't support?

 

[Alpha1]

Gee... there's an argument. Decide what other people do (incorrectly, of course) and then use that to justify your own behavior. Loverly.

By the by, there is no such thing as "you libs"...... I know how you hate tolerance, but really, that's a human value... an American value... so sorry it's one that's alien to you.

Oh yeah... and, ONCE AGAIN, since you seem to have not read the posts. No one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That doesn't mean that they did the CORRECT thing or that any of us have to pretend it WAS the correct thing.

As for bigots, I think we have more than enough of those on this board without someone like you assigning that trait to people who don't possess it.

You follow all that?

You sig. explains it all...."tolerance"? ah yes....and "free speech"...of course...

And then comes of course the crack you proudly display about Coulter....
That explains tolerance and free speech from the liberal perspective I guess....

 

[jillian]

You sig. explains it all...."tolerance"? ah yes....and "free speech"...of course...

And then comes of course the crack you proudly display about Coulter....
That explains tolerance and free speech from the liberal perspective I guess....

Annie Coultergeist is fair game... just exercising my right to free speech. Hatred shouldn't be tolerated. The psycho has every right to say what she thinks... and I have every right to think she should be on meds.

BTW, wasn't my line.... if you'll note, it was David Letterman's. Thought it dead on.

But thanks for your insight... not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gee... there's an argument. Decide what other people do (incorrectly, of course) and then use that to justify your own behavior. Loverly.

By the by, there is no such thing as "you libs"...... I know how you hate tolerance, but really, that's a human value... an American value... so sorry it's one that's alien to you.

Oh yeah... and, ONCE AGAIN, since you seem to have not read the posts. No one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That doesn't mean that they did the CORRECT thing or that any of us have to pretend it WAS the correct thing.

As for bigots, I think we have more than enough of those on this board without someone like you assigning that trait to people who don't possess it.

You follow all that?

First of all, you don't understand a dig when you see one, do you? Just dishing back the same crap that you liberals dish out. Don't like it, too bad.

Yes there is, "you libs" are well known as a group, and damn your "tolerance" for deviants. You want acceptance.

I read the posts but did you? I know that no one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That should have ended the argument by you libs BUT IT DIDN'T. Larkinn continues to say that the Church OUGHT to celebrate any pervert's perversion if their family requests it. I am saying it OUGHT NOT. I am saying Larkinn is not very TOLERANT and that he is acting like a BIGOT. You follow all that?

Lmao...you basically just said "well if you get to look at things incorrectly, than we can as well! So there!". What an asinine, childish, and stupid argument.

Don't like that? How about you quit your assine, childish, and stupid arguments (that'll be the day) and then I'll quit mine (if there are any).

That institutions in this country should be supporting homosexuals, not marginalizing them.

That's your "logical reason" why a church should celebrate homosexuality? What an idiotic answer. That's not logic. That's just you giving your sick opinion.

Besides, I thought you believed in separation of church institutions and state institutions? Why SHOULD a church follow the same morals of the state? Because a bunch of pansy pushers like you say so? Besides, I thought you libs say you aren't pushing MORALS in STATE institutions? You better get rid of those OUGHTS and SHOULDS.

Ok, this lack of reading comprehension is sort of blowing me away. Re-read the thread. If you magically happen to miss the 10 or 20 times that I've said that they do have the right to do what they did, than try reading it again, slower this time.

No lack of reading comprehension. That was said AGAIN for you libs' benefit because you STILL THINK the Church OUGHT to accept deviance. Obviously the church thinks it OUGHT NOT. You need to accept that, walk away, and stop pushing your deviant agenda. Unless you can come up with convincing argument otherwise...still waiting...

Just curious...what Christian sexual "preferences" do you think liberals don't support?

Isn't it obvious? Maybe not to you muckers. It's the non-deviant sexual preference.

 

[jillian]

First of all, you don't understand a dig when you see one, do you? Just dishing back the same crap that you liberals dish out. Don't like it, too bad.

Actually, I do understand a dig. Just pointing out that you sounded ridiculous.... oh yeah, and angry. Are you always that angry? I hear they have pills for that.

Yes there is, "you libs" are well known as a group, and damn your "tolerance" for deviants. You want acceptance.

Keep on creating those fantasies. Lets you hate everyone who disagrees with you. Again, there's no such thing as "you libs". Though I do believe you'd scream bloody murder if I lumped extremists like you together with real conservatives.

I read the posts but did you? I know that no one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That should have ended the argument by you libs BUT IT DIDN'T. Larkinn continues to say that the Church OUGHT to celebrate any pervert's perversion if their family requests it. I am saying it OUGHT NOT. I am saying Larkinn is not very TOLERANT and that he is acting like a BIGOT. You follow all that?

Awwwwwwwwwww.... your feelings get hurt? Tough. And I don't think you did read... but maybe you did and just aren't comprehending. Wouldn't be surprised.

As for Larkin, he has every right not to tolerate hatred. I find it really strange that you are able to twist and spin and delude yourself into thinking that for someone to call someone on their hatred is somehow discriminatory. It's ok to not tolerate hatred.

Cheers.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Jee Jillian, don't get upset and confused... maybe you are just too tired to post coherently?

 

[jillian]

Jee Jillian, don't get upset and confused... maybe you are just too tired to post coherently?

RAFLMAO.... if that makes you feel better. Good argument, though... one of your more coherant ones.

Now go stamp your foot and bang your head against the wall as you toss your widdle tantwum...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

RAFLMAO.... if that makes you feel better. Good argument, though... one of your more coherant ones.

Now go stamp your foot and bang your head against the wall as you toss your widdle tantwum...

I believe that was your problem. Tantrums aren't exactly coherent and that is all I was getting from your post. But I'm glad you still have a sense of humor.

 

[jillian]

I believe that was your problem. Tantrums aren't exactly coherent and that is all I was getting from your post. But I'm glad you still have a sense of humor.

Course I do... how else could I respond to your posts.

 

[Larkinn]

I read the posts but did you? I know that no one is saying that the Church didn't have the RIGHT to do as it chose. That should have ended the argument by you libs BUT IT DIDN'T.

Hi, do you honestly not get the difference between what one ought to do and what one has the right to do? YOU are arguing this difference as well, moron. I, if I were as stupid as you, could easily make the argument "homosexuals have the right to be gay, so stfu".

Larkinn continues to say that the Church OUGHT to celebrate any pervert's perversion if their family requests it. I am saying it OUGHT NOT.

Congratulations. We have a difference of opinion.

I am saying Larkinn is not very TOLERANT and that he is acting like a BIGOT. You follow all that?

Based on what exactly? That I disagree with what someone does? You think I'm a bigot because I disagree with someone?

Don't like that? How about you quit your assine, childish, and stupid arguments (that'll be the day) and then I'll quit mine (if there are any).

Lmao...if there are any.

That's your "logical reason" why a church should celebrate homosexuality? What an idiotic answer. That's not logic. That's just you giving your sick opinion.

Actually it is logical, if one assumes that homosexuals are equals. But you obviously don't assume that.

Besides, I thought you believed in separation of church institutions and state institutions? Why SHOULD a church follow the same morals of the state?

You know...I agree. But I can't help but notice that both the church and the state are against raping little girls. So who do you think should change their opinion...the church or the state?

Are you seriously so ignorant about what separation of church and state is about? Separation does NOT mean the two can have nothing in common.

Because a bunch of pansy pushers like you say so? Besides, I thought you libs say you aren't pushing MORALS in STATE institutions? You better get rid of those OUGHTS and SHOULDS.

The best I can comprehend from this horribly written bunch of junk is that you are claiming that the Church is a state institution, which it obviously is not.

No lack of reading comprehension. That was said AGAIN for you libs' benefit because you STILL THINK the Church OUGHT to accept deviance. Obviously the church thinks it OUGHT NOT.

No shit sherlock.

You need to accept that, walk away, and stop pushing your deviant agenda.

Why, exactly? By the way...I have a RIGHT to keep arguing...and you apparently ought not to try and convince me otherwise...so by your own twisted logic, please accept that, walk away, and stop pushing your deviant agenda.

Unless you can come up with convincing argument otherwise...still waiting...

Is the standard convincing to you, or convincing to a rational human being?

Isn't it obvious? Maybe not to you muckers. It's the non-deviant sexual preference.

Ah...so your claim is that liberals hate straight people? You are aware that I, and the majority of liberals, are straight, right?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Course I do... how else could I respond to your posts.

witty

Hi, do you honestly not get the difference between what one ought to do and what one has the right to do? YOU are arguing this difference as well, moron. I, if I were as stupid as you, could easily make the argument "homosexuals have the right to be gay, so stfu".

If arguing this difference is too much for you to handle, then just say so. Otherwise I am still waiting for your lucid and enlightening logical argument that is going to convince all here that you are right.

Based on what exactly? That I disagree with what someone does? You think I'm a bigot because I disagree with someone?

You libs really don't like that word "bigot" do you? Isn't it terrible when someone has a valid reason for calling you one? Please don't tell me you are too stupid to understand why.

Actually it is logical, if one assumes that homosexuals are equals. But you obviously don't assume that.

Logical in what way? Of course homosexuals are not equals. They cannot make children together. I also don't think pedophiles are equal either. Nor the other types of deviants that you think should be equal.

You know...I agree. But I can't help but notice that both the church and the state are against raping little girls. So who do you think should change their opinion...the church or the state?
Are you seriously so ignorant about what separation of church and state is about? Separation does NOT mean the two can have nothing in common.

You agree because you cannot say otherwise.
Why should either the church or state change their opinions about not raping little girls?
You think church and state should have pro-homosexuality in common? Why? (maybe someday we will get a real answer)

The best I can comprehend from this horribly written bunch of junk is that you are claiming that the Church is a state institution, which it obviously is not.

If you had any legal ground to stand on you would not be using "oughts and shoulds". You'd be dictating your pansy-pushing morals to the church as well as to the state.

Why, exactly? By the way...I have a RIGHT to keep arguing...and you apparently ought not to try and convince me otherwise...so by your own twisted logic, please accept that, walk away, and stop pushing your deviant agenda.

My agenda is not pro-deviant. Yours is.

Is the standard convincing to you, or convincing to a rational human being?

Still waiting...

Ah...so your claim is that liberals hate straight people? You are aware that I, and the majority of liberals, are straight, right?

No, I did not say that. Stop playing stupid. I basically said that the church has a right to push its own sexual preferences (the non-deviant kind) which you libs don't seem to want to "toerate". That's what is hypocritical and bigoted.

 

[Larkinn]

If arguing this difference is too much for you to handle, then just say so. Otherwise I am still waiting for your lucid and enlightening logical argument that is going to convince all here that you are right.

I've already proved to you the argument would invalidate your other arguments, but here, I will provide an example of why it is so stupid. Here are some things I have the right to do: Have consensual sex with your daughter/sister/mother/wife. Have people protest outside your house all day. Curse you out. Now, do you think that I ought to do all of those things? Or not?

You libs really don't like that word "bigot" do you? Isn't it terrible when someone has a valid reason for calling you one? Please don't tell me you are too stupid to understand why.

It would be terrible if someone had a valid reason for calling me that. Luckily you don't. Now, please attempt to explain why you think I am a bigot. This should be hilarious.

Logical in what way? Of course homosexuals are not equals. They cannot make children together.

Equals does not mean the same in all respects. Idiot.

I also don't think pedophiles are equal either. Nor the other types of deviants that you think should be equal.

You are sick. Get help...seriously.

You agree because you cannot say otherwise.

Are you retarded? That was an obvious sarcastic comment.

Why should either the church or state change their opinions about not raping little girls?

They shouldn't. Unless they conformed to your asinine standard that for separation of church and state they should have different ideas about everything.

You think church and state should have pro-homosexuality in common? Why? (maybe someday we will get a real answer)

Because one view is best for society, best for individuals, and creates a more healthy, open, productive, and equal society.

If you had any legal ground to stand on you would not be using "oughts and shoulds".

Actually if I had legal ground to stand on, I would be arguing against that legal ground. The church should NOT be forced to change their stance. They should do so voluntarily.

You'd be dictating your pansy-pushing morals to the church as well as to the state.

Umm, no. But thanks for trying.

My agenda is not pro-deviant. Yours is.

Considering thats the only thing you picked out, I'll take it as proof that you agree with me that your views are contradictory and hypocritical. Glad we at least agree on that.

Still waiting...

Anwser my question first.

No, I did not say that. Stop playing stupid.

Write more clearly.

I basically said that the church has a right to push its own sexual preferences (the non-deviant kind) which you libs don't seem to want to "toerate". That's what is hypocritical and bigoted.

Already addressed this asinine claim as well. Am I denying services to the Church? Am I treating them any differently than anyone else? No, I am not. Rather I am merely dissenting with them. It is a sad state of our society that morons like you equate dissent with bigotry.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've already proved to you the argument would invalidate your other arguments, but here, I will provide an example of why it is so stupid. Here are some things I have the right to do: Have consensual sex with your daughter/sister/mother/wife. Have people protest outside your house all day. Curse you out. Now, do you think that I ought to do all of those things? Or not?

You have nothing to stand on to support your argument that churches should celebrate homosexuality, other than your opinion. That is the point. You have proven nothing.

It would be terrible if someone had a valid reason for calling me that. Luckily you don't. Now, please attempt to explain why you think I am a bigot. This should be hilarious.

If you can understand the written word you would already have read why.

Equals does not mean the same in all respects. Idiot.

That's a big enough reason for opposing gay marriage. Pansy pusher.

You are sick. Get help...seriously.

What's the problem Larkinn? Don't like your own opinion thrown back at you?

Are you retarded? That was an obvious sarcastic comment.

Yeah, right. You had to agree pinhead.

They shouldn't. Unless they conformed to your asinine standard that for separation of church and state they should have different ideas about everything.

And you have the asinine idea that they should both have the same ideas about everything.

Because one view is best for society, best for individuals, and creates a more healthy, open, productive, and equal society.

And whose "view" is best? What you leftists want to do is silence the Church and then dictate to it.

Actually if I had legal ground to stand on, I would be arguing against that legal ground. The church should NOT be forced to change their stance. They should do so voluntarily.

You are full of it.

Considering thats the only thing you picked out, I'll take it as proof that you agree with me that your views are contradictory and hypocritical. Glad we at least agree on that.

I take it you agree that your agenda is pro-deviant.

Anwser my question first.

What question? Anyhow I asked first.

Write more clearly.

I can't get much clearer. You are the one who dodges and weaves.

Already addressed this asinine claim as well. Am I denying services to the Church? Am I treating them any differently than anyone else? No, I am not. Rather I am merely dissenting with them. It is a sad state of our society that morons like you equate dissent with bigotry.

Then I suggest you libs stop calling us "mere dissenters" as being discriminatory and homophobic.
Bigotry is your middle name libtard.

 

[Larkinn]

You have nothing to stand on to support your argument that churches should celebrate homosexuality, other than your opinion. That is the point. You have proven nothing.

Derr...I never claimed it was objective truth, idiot. Regardless you haven't responded to me proving you wrong...but no surprise there.

If you can understand the written word you would already have read why.

I can understand it just fine. You however seem to be unable to write coherently. But, again, no real surprise.

That's a big enough reason for opposing gay marriage. Pansy pusher.

Umm alright then.

What's the problem Larkinn? Don't like your own opinion thrown back at you?

That was never my opinion. But I can see how with someone who has the mental capacity of a monkey might think it was.

Yeah, right. You had to agree pinhead.

Lmao...I had to agree? Which is why right after that I disagreed and explained why it is SO fucking obvious your view is retarded?

And you have the asinine idea that they should both have the same ideas about everything.

No, actually I don't. This would be obvious to anyone who had even a basic level of reading comprehension, but obviously you don't.

And whose "view" is best? What you leftists want to do is silence the Church and then dictate to it.

Incorrect. You can barely form coherent sentences, you have displayed a complete lack of ability to create decent arguments, please don't pretend that you can tell what anyone else wants to do. You hate "leftists" for some weird personal problems. Seriously...stop projecting and blaming them for your own problems. Seek help.

You are full of it.

See previous comment.

I take it you agree that your agenda is pro-deviant.

Nope. Moron.

What question? Anyhow I asked first.

Try reading it again.

I can't get much clearer. You are the one who dodges and weaves.

You can't get much clearer because you are a complete moron. Perhaps if you weren't so fucking stupid you would be able to handle that fairly simple task.

Then I suggest you libs stop calling us "mere dissenters" as being discriminatory and homophobic.
Bigotry is your middle name libtard.

The whole is that you aren't a "mere dissenter". Feel free to say that homosexuals ought not to have sex with other men. However once you start treating them differently based on those actions THEN it becomes bigotry. Something about this you missed when I explained it before, or are you just that stupid?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Derr...I never claimed it was objective truth, idiot. Regardless you haven't responded to me proving you wrong...but no surprise there.

The onus was on you since you made the claim in the first place, dork. Learn how to back up your claims. (still waiting&#8230

Lmao...I had to agree? Which is why right after that I disagreed and explained why it is SO fucking obvious your view is retarded?

You had to agree about the separation of church and state bit because if you didn't it would totally blow your whole liberal claim to homo fame. Get it now, lork?

The whole is that you aren't a "mere dissenter". Feel free to say that homosexuals ought not to have sex with other men. However once you start treating them differently based on those actions THEN it becomes bigotry. Something about this you missed when I explained it before, or are you just that stupid?

I see. When you dissent it's OK. However, when I or a church dissents, it's not.
Welcome to the world of liberal "equality"!

FYI treating someone differently is not necessarily bigotry.
I treat you differently than anyone else on this board. Is that bigotry? No, you just deserve it.
The church treating homosexual displays differently than straight displays is not bigotry either because it is consistent with their teachings. You are just bent out of shape because you have bought into the homo propaganda and have become a pansy pusher for the Leftist agenda. How dare a Church disdain your beliefs of pervert equality!

 

[ReillyT]

The church treating homosexual displays differently than straight displays is not bigotry either because it is consistent with their teachings.

To interject for just a smidgeon of a second - church teachings and bigotry are not mutually exclusive.

Just a little (kind of obvious) clarification. Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

The onus was on you since you made the claim in the first place, dork. Learn how to back up your claims. (still waiting…)

Dork? Grow up child. And I've backed up everything I've said and proven several of your moronic ideas incorrect.

You had to agree about the separation of church and state bit because if you didn't it would totally blow your whole liberal claim to homo fame. Get it now, lork?

As was stated, I don't actually agree with it. Especially since it is fucking moronic. But do try and prove me wrong...its amusing watching you squirm.

I see. When you dissent it's OK. However, when I or a church dissents, it's not.
Welcome to the world of liberal "equality"!

Nice strawman (look it up, its a logical fallacy).

FYI treating someone differently is not necessarily bigotry.
I treat you differently than anyone else on this board. Is that bigotry? No, you just deserve it.

So you think everyone are homosexuals?

The church treating homosexual displays differently than straight displays is not bigotry either because it is consistent with their teachings.

Lmfao...their teachings are bigoted. Dumbass.

You are just bent out of shape because you have bought into the homo propaganda and have become a pansy pusher for the Leftist agenda. How dare a Church disdain your beliefs of pervert equality!

You seem to be much more bent of shape than I am. Bad experience in your childhood perhaps?