Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[ReillyT]

Incorrect. Homophobia requires a fear or antipathy of homosexuality. Considering abnormal behavior abnormal does not. Neither does refusing to cater to it if it is contrary to your beliefs.

Not to quibble too much (since I have been on vacation and missed you GL), but refusing business (or other) dealings with homosexuals does suggest homophobia (correctly defined by you as a fear or antipathy of homosexuality).

"Antipathy" (and I had to look this up to be sure) is a "a feeling of aversion or repugnance." Now, there are many things that I find abnormal, such as ugh boots and people who talk with their hands (like Italians), but I can't imagine many people would decline services to these people. Generally (I am surmising), people decline service to those whose abnormal actions or traits they find distasteful or have an aversion to, which pretty much sums up the definition of homophobia.

Of course, it is possible that there are people who discriminate against homosexuals and people in ugh boots alike. I guess that narrow slice of the population could not be classified as homophobic.

 

[Gunny]

Not to quibble too much (since I have been on vacation and missed you GL), but refusing business (or other) dealings with homosexuals does suggest homophobia (correctly defined by you as a fear or antipathy of homosexuality).

"Antipathy" (and I had to look this up to be sure) is a "a feeling of aversion or repugnance." Now, there are many things that I find abnormal, such as ugh boots and people who talk with their hands (like Italians), but I can't imagine many people would decline services to these people. Generally (I am surmising), people decline service to those whose abnormal actions or traits they find distasteful or have an aversion to, which pretty much sums up the definition of homophobia.

Of course, it is possible that there are people who discriminate against homosexuals and people in ugh boots alike. I guess that narrow slice of the population could not be classified as homophobic.

I disagree. Most churches follow the Bible. The Bible states that homosexuality is "an abomination before the eyes of the Lord."

Not performing services for people who choose to live a lifestyle that purposefully defies the will of God requires neither fear nor antipathy.

I'd venture to say that most churches if not all would not perform the same service for atheists. Again, no antipathy nor fear required. Just a lifestyle that goes against the beliefs of the religion. That can easily be a matter of fact decision.

 

[Kagom]

I know of several churches that would hold the services for an atheist unless he was one of those loudmouthed ones. But that's my experience with Catholic churches only.

 

[ReillyT]

I disagree. Most churches follow the Bible. The Bible states that homosexuality is "an abomination before the eyes of the Lord."

Not performing services for people who choose to live a lifestyle that purposefully defies the will of God requires neither fear nor antipathy.

I'd venture to say that most churches if not all would not perform the same service for atheists. Again, no antipathy nor fear required. Just a lifestyle that goes against the beliefs of the religion. That can easily be a matter of fact decision.

With respect to churches, I guess you are probably right (that it may not be homophobia). There are doctrinal issues that may well supersede any personal animosities or antipathies. However, do you think churches treat homosexuality different than other recurring vices? Do you believe that most churches that would refuse to perform a service for a homosexual would treat a serial adulterer or multiple divorcee the same? What about someone who maintained a terrible relationship with their parents? Do you think proclaimed stances on doctrine are often just pretexts for a more visceral, emotional stance against homosexuals (as I think that they are)?

By the way, I use the term homophobia in the dictionary sense of the word. I don't fully understand the depth of some persons' attitudes about homosexuality, but I don't especially mean the term perjoratively.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We are at war we need to kill the enemy... Babies are not a threat... liberals are.

Translation: "I'm a homicidal maniac, who wants to kill fellow americans!"

 

[maineman]

I disagree. Most churches follow the Bible. The Bible states that homosexuality is "an abomination before the eyes of the Lord."

Not performing services for people who choose to live a lifestyle that purposefully defies the will of God requires neither fear nor antipathy.

I'd venture to say that most churches if not all would not perform the same service for atheists. Again, no antipathy nor fear required. Just a lifestyle that goes against the beliefs of the religion. That can easily be a matter of fact decision.

some christian denominations put more priority on the words written in red than others...and certainly way more priority than those found in the old testament.

 

[Gem]

Kagom Wrote:

I know of several churches that would hold the services for an atheist unless he was one of those loudmouthed ones. But that's my experience with Catholic churches only.

I think that this is fairly common practice for most churches. They will hold funeral services for people as long as those people or their families did not or are not requesting that their "sins" (as defined by the church) be made a major part of the proceedings.

An atheist whose family wanted a Catholic funeral would probably face little trouble in finding a church that would agree to hold the service. Finding a church that would agree to an atheist speaker discussing how "devoutly" the deceased held to the belief that there was no God, no afterlife of any sort, etc. would more likely than not be an entirely different issue.

With that in mind, it would seem that many churches would be willing to "turn the other cheek" when it came to providing funeral services to those that live lives or hold ideas that are against their teachings - they just aren't willing to let those ideas be celebrated and, due to the location, "condoned" by the church. The church in question in this article was willing to hold the funeral of a gay man...they were not willing to be the venue of a celebration of the gay lifestyle. In a way...they showed that they were willing to be tolerant...but that there was a point where they had to remain true to their core beliefs. You can still disagree with their core beliefs....but it wasn't as if the church chased the family out the door with pitchforks and torches screaming "Death to the Gays and any who support them!!!"

Reilly T Wrote:

However, do you think churches treat homosexuality different than other recurring vices? Do you believe that most churches that would refuse to perform a service for a homosexual would treat a serial adulterer or multiple divorcee the same? What about someone who maintained a terrible relationship with their parents? Do you think proclaimed stances on doctrine are often just pretexts for a more visceral, emotional stance against homosexuals (as I think that they are)?

I think that this is a really interesting point. I do think that there is an interesting "obsession" with homosexuality among many christians that is not demonstrated towards other "sins" like gluttony, taking the Lord's name in vain, honoring parents, infidelity, etc. I have always found this to be one of the most troubling aspects of the anti-homosexuality mindset. Why spend so much time obsessing over homosexuality and not give the same level of contempt to people who cheat on their spouses? I think there are many reasons for this...but that is for another thread or at the least, another post.

While I DO think that most churches would hold funeral services for a man who cheated on his spouse...they might not be so quick to do so if his 4th wife wanted to show a slide show of how he had left his first wife for his 2nd wife, the secretary...only to leave her for his 3rd wife - his business partner...only to leave her after he met his 4th wife, the stripper during the memorial service in the church gymnasium. I do think they would hold services for a man who constantly took the Lord's name in vain...I don't think most churches would support a audio-recording of him swearing up a storm as he watched his favorite team lose the SuperBowl was played in the alcove, etc.

I think that most churches are willing to overlook the "sin"...but wouldn't be willing to allow the "sin" to be celebrated in the church - be it homosexuality, infidelity, etc.

That being said, I do think that there are a multitude of "sins" that are considered by the Bible to be far "more important" than homosexuality that, in today's world, get no consideration whatsoever - gluttony, honoring the Sabbath, honoring thy father and mother, coveting, etc.

 

[Gunny]

With respect to churches, I guess you are probably right (that it may not be homophobia). There are doctrinal issues that may well supersede any personal animosities or antipathies. However, do you think churches treat homosexuality different than other recurring vices? Do you believe that most churches that would refuse to perform a service for a homosexual would treat a serial adulterer or multiple divorcee the same? What about someone who maintained a terrible relationship with their parents? Do you think proclaimed stances on doctrine are often just pretexts for a more visceral, emotional stance against homosexuals (as I think that they are)?

By the way, I use the term homophobia in the dictionary sense of the word. I don't fully understand the depth of some persons' attitudes about homosexuality, but I don't especially mean the term perjoratively.

I also used the dictionary definition of homophobia.

I cannot speak for who this particular church will and will not perfrom a funeral service for except that obviously, not homosexuals. I don't see that it matters. I DO see where you're trying to take it.

Different denominations place different emphasis on certain things. Most however, would not perform a service for someone to be known to be an unrepentant sinner.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Please.

The obsession with homosexuals is completely manufactured and ridiculous. As far as sins in the bible go, its not even in the top tier. I don't think Jesus even mentioned it. It wasn't that long ago, that fundamentalist would point to verses in the bible to justify prohibitions on inter-racial marriage.

This is called hiding behind the bible, to justify your own bigotry.

I mean eating pork is considered an "abominable" sin in the bible. I'm quite sure this church wouldn't have a problem with some dudes funeral, which had pictures of him eating a Holiday ham. Have you all read Leviticus or Isaiah? There's all kinds of crazy prohibitions and punishments in there, that no modern 21st century person - fundamentalist or not - follows.

 

[Gunny]

Please.

The obsession with homosexuals is completely manufactured and ridiculous. As far as sins in the bible go, its not even in the top tier. I don't think Jesus even mentioned it. It wasn't that long ago, that fundamentalist would point to verses in the bible to justify prohibitions on inter-racial marriage.

This is called hiding behind the bible, to justify your own bigotry.

I mean eating pork is considered an "abominable" sin in the bible. I'm quite sure this church wouldn't have a problem with some dudes funeral, which had pictures of him eating a Holiday ham. Have you all read Leviticus or Isaiah? There's all kinds of crazy prohibitions and punishments in there, that no modern 21st century person - fundamentalist or not - follows.

About as manufactured and ridiculous as your continued accusations against anyone who doesn't believe what you think they should.

 

[maineman]

About as manufactured and ridiculous as your continued accusations against anyone who doesn't believe what you think they should.

Gunny: may I recommend "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis?

 

[Larkinn]

Incorrect. Homophobia requires a fear or antipathy of homosexuality. Considering abnormal behavior abnormal does not. Neither does refusing to cater to it if it is contrary to your beliefs.

Considering abnormal behavior abnormal? Nice circular argument there, but its bullshit spin.

It's a dismissive label used in lieu of a logical argument. As you so readily admit in your last sentence, you aren't listening. You've decided anyone who doesn't believe the same as you in regard to homosexuals is stupid.

Give me an actual argument and I'll listen. And no, I haven't decided that anyone who doesn't believe the same as me in regard to homosexuals. I consider that stupid behavior. Large difference between the two things.

Find another church. If I or anyone else chooses to associate with like-minded people, and not associate with people whose beliefs are contrary, that is our right.

And it is my right to speak out about it if I disagree with it.

You are singling out people based on their beliefs, and criticizing them for not believing as you do. Bigotry doesn't work just one way, in your favor.

Lmao...you think that criticizing someone based on their beliefs is bigotry? This is a political message board...that happens all the time here. If you truly believe that (which I doubt you do, because it is an incredibly stupid belief), why are you moderating a board of bigotry?

 

[Alpha1]

Please.

The obsession with homosexuals is completely manufactured and ridiculous. As far as sins in the bible go, its not even in the top tier. I don't think Jesus even mentioned it. It wasn't that long ago, that fundamentalist would point to verses in the bible to justify prohibitions on inter-racial marriage.

This is called hiding behind the bible, to justify your own bigotry.

I mean eating pork is considered an "abominable" sin in the bible. I'm quite sure this church wouldn't have a problem with some dudes funeral, which had pictures of him eating a Holiday ham. Have you all read Leviticus or Isaiah? There's all kinds of crazy prohibitions and punishments in there, that no modern 21st century person - fundamentalist or not - follows.

The deceased didn't even belong to a Church....(why were they even there?)

The family choose "provocative" photos to be displayed at the service....
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," he said. "My ministry associates were taken aback."
It's that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service.

And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service.
If the family wanted to make this demand, they didn't need the services of a church in the first....

At least some theological questions could have been worked out, Ms. Bowers said. For instance, the family was willing to allow the church to issue an "altar call" asking people to accept Jesus at the end of the service.
Well, mighty big of the family to they say they would "allow" the church this extravegence...they should have nothing to even say about it....its a Church for Christ's sake....

After the church decided it would not host the funeral service, it offered to pay for another facility...Why the Church thought they needed to even make this gesture is going above and beyond...


High Point Church opposes homosexuality, and there was no way the church could host a service that appeared to endorse it
=============================
So...If you actually read the article...the inappropriate photos of Homosexual behaivor........
along with, The family wanted "its own people to officiate the service"...........
and saying they would "allow" this so called alter call ,...

Three very good reasons the Church had every right to deny them the use of their Church.....
---------------

This "obsession with homosexuals is completely manufactured and ridiculous" certainly is manufactured and ridiculous....
Manufacture by DCD .....this guy being a homo or not, had little to do with the Churchs decision....
and the family's demands, everything to do with it....

and the "hiding behind the bible" is just so much strawman crap....that crack can be made for every issue and how believers choose to interpret what
they read in the Bible...

 

[Gunny]

Considering abnormal behavior abnormal? Nice circular argument there, but its bullshit spin.



Give me an actual argument and I'll listen. And no, I haven't decided that anyone who doesn't believe the same as me in regard to homosexuals. I consider that stupid behavior. Large difference between the two things.



And it is my right to speak out about it if I disagree with it.



Lmao...you think that criticizing someone based on their beliefs is bigotry? This is a political message board...that happens all the time here. If you truly believe that (which I doubt you do, because it is an incredibly stupid belief), why are you moderating a board of bigotry?

Do yourself a favor, and use a dictionary before opening your mouth.

I've made plenty of logical arguments with you on the topic of homosexuality. Was the first argument you and I ever had. Your mind is closed, period.

SO I see no reason to waste my time engaging in a game of trying to untwist your words once again.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny: may I recommend "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis?

To what purpose? The point is, this church has the right to decide who it will and will not accept as members based on its criteria, and the same for performing services for others.

People have a right to believe what they want ... not just what Larkinn and DeadCanDance dictate. The first people to whine freedom of speech are the same two who wish to deny it first.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The deceased didn't even belong to a Church....(why were they even there?)

The family choose "provocative" photos to be displayed at the service....
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," he said. "My ministry associates were taken aback."
It's that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service.

And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service.
If the family wanted to make this demand, they didn't need the services of a church in the first....

At least some theological questions could have been worked out, Ms. Bowers said. For instance, the family was willing to allow the church to issue an "altar call" asking people to accept Jesus at the end of the service.
Well, mighty big of the family to they say they would "allow" the church this extravegence...they should have nothing to even say about it....its a Church for Christ's sake....

After the church decided it would not host the funeral service, it offered to pay for another facility...Why the Church thought they needed to even make this gesture is going above and beyond...


High Point Church opposes homosexuality, and there was no way the church could host a service that appeared to endorse it
=============================
So...If you actually read the article...the inappropriate photos of Homosexual behaivor........
along with, The family wanted "its own people to officiate the service"...........
and saying they would "allow" this so called alter call ,...

Three very good reasons the Church had every right to deny them the use of their Church.....
---------------

This "obsession with homosexuals is completely manufactured and ridiculous" certainly is manufactured and ridiculous....
Manufacture by DCD .....this guy being a homo or not, had little to do with the Churchs decision....
and the family's demands, everything to do with it....

and the "hiding behind the bible" is just so much strawman crap....that crack can be made for every issue and how believers choose to interpret what
they read in the Bible...

"The family choose "provocative" photos to be displayed at the service....
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,"


GASP! Humans beings kissing and hugging their loved ones! Oh, the horror!!!


Personally, if these so-called christians really followed the literal words of the bible, they would excommunicate anyone who ate a pork sandwich. Read Leviticus. But, I'm quite sure they pick and choose which sins and prohibitions they choose to be "shocked" about.

 

[Gunny]

"The family choose "provocative" photos to be displayed at the service....
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,"


GASP! Humans beings kissing and hugging their loved ones! Oh, the horror!!!


Personally, if these so-called christians really followed the literal words of the bible, they would excommunicate anyone who ate a pork sandwich. Read Leviticus. But, I'm quite sure they pick and choose which sins and prohibitions they choose to be "shocked" about.

If you're not a Christian, don't worry about what Christians are doing. It's none of your business.

 

[Alpha1]

"The family choose "provocative" photos to be displayed at the service....
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,"


GASP! Humans beings kissing and hugging their loved ones! Oh, the horror!!!


Personally, if these so-called christians really followed the literal words of the bible, they would excommunicate anyone who ate a pork sandwich. Read Leviticus. But, I'm quite sure they pick and choose which sins and prohibitions they choose to be "shocked" about.

Personally....what YOU think is irrelevant ... the only thing relevant is what this particular Church thinks....and they can pick and choose to worship and believe however THEY see fit within the laws of the US....
If the homos family didn't like how the church operated they had the freedom to go to some other facility that would accommodate their wishes...

If some porn queen wants her videos shown at her funeral in the Vatican, she can't indignantly bitch when they turn her down....

 

[Gunny]

Personally....what YOU think is irrelevant ... the only thing relevant is what this particular Church thinks....and they can pick and choose to worship and believe however THEY see fit within the laws of the US....
If the homos family didn't like how the church operated they had the freedom to go to some other facility that would accommodate their wishes...

If some porn queen wants her videos shown at her funeral in the Vatican, she can't indignantly bitch when they turn her down....

ITA. Good post.

 

[jillian]

If you're not a Christian, don't worry about what Christians are doing. It's none of your business.

I'd disagree. I think bigotry is fair game.... even if they have the right to be bigots. Nothing wrong with holding their feet to the fire. Otherwise nothing changes. Sometimes embarrasing people for their hatred is a good thing. Maybe it then causes them some consternation to do something similar. Maybe their parishoners stop giving them money (or not... since some will give more). Either way, light is always cleansing.