Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[mattskramer]

why are they not allowed their free speech rights?

Of course they are allowed free speech. Everyone is allowed free speech within limits. I doubt that people are allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. I think that are (or that there should be) laws against disrupting a solemn funeral service (particularly when the person disrupting the funeral was not invited to attend).

Aside from extreme cases, people should be allowed to speak, even when I think that what they say is the most vile and offensive “garbage” that I have ever heard.

 

[Larkinn]

why are they not allowed their free speech rights?

This is NOT a free speech issue. Why are you having such trouble understanding this?

You act as if by condemning the Church for their actions we are infringing on their freedom of speech.

 

[mattskramer]

This is NOT a free speech issue. Why are you having such trouble understanding this?

You act as if by condemning the Church for their actions we are infringing on their freedom of speech.

People have the right to do things and to speak about things. Yet, people also have the right to criticize what people do and say.

 

[Gem]

While I feel that this story is very sad...I find myself wondering more about the intentions of the family than the intentions of the church. The church was true to its beliefs...while some may disagree with the belief, as so many have already said, they do have the right to believe it and act accordingly. Since I agree with that - that the church had the right to act as it did, whether I agree with it or not - I find myself thinking about the family and their choices.

If one of my homosexual friends died, I would not want their funeral to be held in a place surrounded by people who disapproved of their lifestyle. I would not want to have to fight just to show pictures of his or her life. I would not want the person presiding over the funeral to disapprove of my friend's lifestyle. I would want their funeral to be a celebration of their lives and a respectful, loving time for those who loved them to be able to gather together and laugh and cry over the life of our friend who is no longer with us.

Therefore, I would not want his/her funeral to be at a church (especially one that he did not belong to in the first place) that had an open feeling of anti-homosexuality.

With that in mind, I find myself wondering why this family wanted this. If I read in correctly, it wasn't like it was this individual's church for years and years. Were they really concerned about remembering their loved one in a respectful and cherishing way? Or were they looking to make some sort of statement in addition to the funeral, choosing a church and not giving them the information about the fact that they were going to celebrate his openly gay lifestyle? Or did they simply not think that showing the pictures would be a big deal - which seems somewhat naive to me since I do not feel its a surprise that a church would have issues with openly gay photographs.

I guess in simplest terms I'm wondering why the family would WANT to hold the funeral and memorial service of their openly and non-apologetically gay relative (and I'm not saying he should have been apologetic..only that he wasn't) in a church that obviously holds firmly to their convictions that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[Kagom]

a non-profit business still has the right to refuse service ...

the tale of sodom and gomorrah is an interesting story ....

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah does not imply homosexuality being the cause of their destruction.

 

[Larkinn]

I guess in simplest terms I'm wondering why the family would WANT to hold the funeral and memorial service of their openly and non-apologetically gay relative (and I'm not saying he should have been apologetic..only that he wasn't) in a church that obviously holds firmly to their convictions that homosexuality is a sin?

From what I got from the article, it seemed as if the man was a servicemember and the church offered to give his funeral for free because of that.

 

[Gem]

Gem Wrote:

Ok, I obviously missed that when I skimmed through...lemme go back and check. Thanks!

Ok, upon re-reading - his brother was the member of the church and they offered the service out of respect and caring for him. I think my post still kinda stands...why would the family (especially the family member that was church member) push the issue of the photographs when the brother probably knew that the church would be against it?

While I feel that the church should have either a)not offered or b) specified that the offer was contingent on their having more control over the service/memorial, I do think that the family probably should have considered holding it elsewhere or, if they wanted the service at the church, agreed to downplay the photos.

Do I think that this person should have had to hide who he is, in life or in death? No. But I do think that because of the freedoms in this country, you have to respect that not everyone feels the same way. You may hate the KKK (I hope you do!)...but if you have a crazy racist uncle...you're probably not going to bring your black friends to dinner when he is there unless you're TRYING to stir some shit up. I may disagree completely with this church...but since I believe that they have the right to be anti-homosexual...I'm probably not going to try to have a funeral/memorial service that is obviously celebrating an openly gay man in their church.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Liberalism is a real danger to our freedoms.
Liberals tout "separation between church and state" - but only when it suits them.

A government funeral would not allow draping the casket with a Christian flag.
A church should be able to not allow draping the casket in the gay flag.

I see this conflict as nothing more than a power play by liberals seeking to invade churches via their favorite method of intrusion - that of instituting their cherished immoral homosexual agenda.

What would Jesus do? Jesus forgave the prostitute and then told her to go and sin no more.
That is the same message the church is giving to sinners. To allow celebration of the man's homosexuality would have been sinning again.

 

[Larkinn]

Gem Wrote:


Ok, upon re-reading - his brother was the member of the church and they offered the service out of respect and caring for him. I think my post still kinda stands...why would the family (especially the family member that was church member) push the issue of the photographs when the brother probably knew that the church would be against it?

While I feel that the church should have either a)not offered or b) specified that the offer was contingent on their having more control over the service/memorial, I do think that the family probably should have considered holding it elsewhere or, if they wanted the service at the church, agreed to downplay the photos.

Do I think that this person should have had to hide who he is, in life or in death? No. But I do think that because of the freedoms in this country, you have to respect that not everyone feels the same way. You may hate the KKK (I hope you do!)...but if you have a crazy racist uncle...you're probably not going to bring your black friends to dinner when he is there unless you're TRYING to stir some shit up. I may disagree completely with this church...but since I believe that they have the right to be anti-homosexual...I'm probably not going to try to have a funeral/memorial service that is obviously celebrating an openly gay man in their church.

Of course they have a right to it...just as we all have a right to condemn them for it. I don't know that the family members were trying to push any agenda...it doesn't seem like they fought for the funeral. They wanted it, said that homosexuality was part of this guys life, and that it needed to be mentioned...the church said then you can't have it here...so they went somewhere else.

I see this conflict as nothing more than a power play by liberals seeking to invade churches via their favorite method of intrusion - that of instituting their cherished immoral homosexual agenda.

Your right...it has nothing to do with a family mourning one of their dead. It has to do with a power play by liberals. Jesus...are you really this stupid?

 

[mattskramer]

Liberalism is a real danger to our freedoms.
Liberals tout "separation between church and state" - but only when it suits them.

You are starting to post like RSR. “Liberals this” and “Liberals that”. Do you have any statistical proof that liberals tout separation only when it suits them?

A government funeral would not allow draping the casket with a Christian flag. A church should be able to not allow draping the casket in the gay flag.

I don’t want the government involved in funerals any more than I want the government involved in marriages – I want the government to keep out. If governments were to perform funerals, I suspect that they would drape whatever flags the deceased, or the deceased’s family, would want on the casket. A church should be free to decide its own policy concerning if, when, and how it performs funerals.

I see this conflict as nothing more than a power play by liberals seeking to invade churches via their favorite method of intrusion - that of instituting their cherished immoral homosexual agenda.

I may need to carefully read the story and this thread again. I do not see anyone trying to force an individual church to perform a funeral that the family wanted. People are simply freely speaking their dissatisfaction and disappointment.

What would Jesus do? Jesus forgave the prostitute and then told her to go and sin no more. That is the same message the church is giving to sinners. To allow celebration of the man's homosexuality would have been sinning again.

There are different interpretations on the God’s position on homosexuality. Perhaps the family should have attended a church that has a different perspective on homosexuality and funerals.

 

[Ruby]

Well gluttony is also a sin according to the bible but I bet we dont have any churches refusing to bury fat people or wont allow pics of those fat people eating a thanksgiving dinner!

 

[mattskramer]

I wonder if the church still holds thightly to these Biblical positions too:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

Ephesians insists that wives should submit to their husbands in everything (5:22-24). Remember, the woman has no right to divorce the man. In addition, the author fails to mention the existence of any out clause for her in such a situation. It would appear as though she has no choice but to comply with his orders if she is to obey the words in the scripture.

The authors of Colossians, Titus, and 1 Peter all agree that women should submit to their husbands (3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, respectively). The books of Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies (1 Peter 3:2-6), refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple (1 Peter 3:7), and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house (2 Peter 2:8 referring to Genesis 19:4-8). A man with the immoral qualities of Lot cannot be regarded as righteous unless you discount the inherent rights of all people, more specifically, the inherent rights of women.

The author of Timothy also follows suit with his bigoted opinions of women. … This author isn’t particularly kind to widows either. He says we should leave these women in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. A widow experiencing pleasure while she’s still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the author’s eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows aren’t worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15)....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wonder if the church still holds thightly to these Biblical positions too:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

I wonder if your aware of the NEW Testament? Of the change in direction that occurred with the Coming of Jesus? Of the Reformation? Any of those ring a bell?

 

[mattskramer]

I wonder if your aware of the NEW Testament? Of the change in direction that occurred with the Coming of Jesus? Of the Reformation? Any of those ring a bell?

I’ve spent years in Sunday school. I’ve read several Apologetics book and books that attempt to prove that God does not exist. I’ve read the entire Bible several times. I am well aware of the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Carefully read my post again. See the link within it.

Ephesians is in the New Testament.
Colossians is in The New Testament.
Titus is in the New Testament.
1 Peter is in the New Testament.
2 Peter is in the New Testament.
1 Timothy is in the New Testament.

These books were supposedly written after Jesus ascended. The Bible gives advice in the Old Testament. It gives advice in the New Testament. Some people would consider the advice to be quite bizarre.

 

[mattskramer]

I’ve spent years in Sunday school. I’ve read several Apologetics book and books that attempt to prove that God does not exist. I’ve read the entire Bible several times. I am well aware of the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Carefully read my post again. See the link within it.

Ephesians is in the New Testament.
Colossians is in The New Testament.
Titus is in the New Testament.
1 Peter is in the New Testament.
2 Peter is in the New Testament.
1 Timothy is in the New Testament.

These books were supposedly written after Jesus ascended. The Bible gives advice in the Old Testament. It gives advice in the New Testament. Some people would consider the advice to be quite bizarre.

I’ve been somewhat fascinated by 1 Corinthians. (Corinthians can be found in the New Testament.) It has a lot of interesting instructions. It says that a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. It later says that men are to let their women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

It seems somewhat repressive and sexist to me.

 

[Alucard]

I wonder if the church still holds thightly to these Biblical positions too:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

I wouldnt waist my time reading or give credence to anything found on a website named bibliclenonsesense...

I'm sure you get a very fair and balanced report from such a rediculous source..

The simple fact that some people find piss poor biased sources like this credible is unbelievable..

 

[Gem]

Larkin Wrote:

Of course they have a right to it...just as we all have a right to condemn them for it. I don't know that the family members were trying to push any agenda...it doesn't seem like they fought for the funeral. They wanted it, said that homosexuality was part of this guys life, and that it needed to be mentioned...the church said then you can't have it here...so they went somewhere else.

I'm not arguing against anything you have written here, Larkin.
I agree that it seemed that they did not fight for the funeral once it became evident that there was opposition to the type of funeral/memorial they wanted. My post was simply an additional question in this discussion. Since this man's brother - was a member in good-standing of this church - he was probably aware of the church's opinion of homosexuality. Therefore, I'm wondering why he and his family would want to move forward with a church service held by people who disapprove of their family member's life. I would not want my family member mourned by people who disapproved of him. I'm not stating that the family didn't have the right to try to take the church up on their offer...I'm just wondering why they did.

I see this conflict as nothing more than a power play by liberals seeking to invade churches via their favorite method of intrusion - that of instituting their cherished immoral homosexual agenda.

Your right...it has nothing to do with a family mourning one of their dead. It has to do with a power play by liberals. Jesus...are you really this stupid?

On a side note: Screaming Eagle wrote this quote, Larkin, but because of the way you wrote it it looks as if you were quoting and responding to me. Please make sure to give appropriate credit to the people you quote - I do not want other people's thoughts and statements attributed to me. Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin Wrote:


I'm not arguing against anything you have written here, Larkin.
I agree that it seemed that they did not fight for the funeral once it became evident that there was opposition to the type of funeral/memorial they wanted. My post was simply an additional question in this discussion. Since this man's brother - was a member in good-standing of this church - he was probably aware of the church's opinion of homosexuality. Therefore, I'm wondering why he and his family would want to move forward with a church service held by people who disapprove of their family member's life. I would not want my family member mourned by people who disapproved of him. I'm not stating that the family didn't have the right to try to take the church up on their offer...I'm just wondering why they did.

I have no idea why they did it...but if I was in their shoes I guess it would seem petty to disassociate with people who disapproved of the way he lived his life...he is dead now after all.

On a side note: Screaming Eagle wrote this quote, Larkin, but because of the way you wrote it it looks as if you were quoting and responding to me. Please make sure to give appropriate credit to the people you quote - I do not want other people's thoughts and statements attributed to me. Thanks.

Yeah, sorry about that. I can see why you wouldnt want to be associated with SE ;p.

 

[CockySOB]

From what I got from the article, it seemed as if the man was a servicemember and the church offered to give his funeral for free because of that.

The decedent's brother was an member and employee of the church. The decedent was neither.

 

[Alucard]

That is not factually accurate either. The Church could condone it in several different ways. But they do not have to. More importantly it is obvious from what has been posted that the family wanted rub the life style in the churches face.

Yes it is factually accurate... No Christian church can condone homosexual sex and be taken seriously in the eyes of other Christian denominations...