Church refuses to hold funeral for gay man

[Gem]

Alpha1 Wrote:

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....

I see where you are going with this...and in part, you are right. The church had the right to deny this family the funeral they had originally promised them.

Where the argument comes in is here: Not many (in fact, I'm not sure that anyone has) here have argued that the church didn't have the right to do this - they are simply arguing that the church shouldn't have denied the family the funeral.

While you can disagree with those who hold this opinion - it IS important to remember that they are not saying that the church does not have the right to do this, they are not arguing that this right should be taken away from the church...they are saying that the church should not have exercised that right for a number of reasons.

 

[Larkinn]

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

You are the one who insists on whining and bitching when I talk about word definitions and who continually uses abnormal incorrectly.

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.

No, you didn't. It was a bunch of posturing rhetoric based on no substance at all. You continually spout the term abnormal, while having no idea what it means.

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

Then don't respond to me, and fuck off.

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.

Excuse me? I have said over and over this is not a freedom of speech issue and that they have a right to say/do whatever they want. Try reading what I say before you attempt to label me and maybe next time you'll be able to get in the general ballpark.

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

If you aren't a homosexual, don't worry about what homosexuals are doing. It's none of your business.

 

[Alpha1]

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.

And that is why the founders, in their wisdom, gave us the FIRST AMENDMENT...."freedom OF Religion"....to stop elitists from the left from imposing their brand of bigotry on the rest...

Main Entry: big·ot

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Example....the Libs and Dims treatment of Bush and company, Conservatives in general, and anyone else that fails to believe as they do....

 

[Gem]

Gunny Wrote:

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

Come on now, this is just silly. Just like you and I comment on things and people that have nothing to do with us all the time, non-Christians can and should comment on Christian-related events and ideas...free exchange of ideas is so important and it is why boards like this one are interesting places.

If I said to you: "If you're not a Muslim or a Jew, don't worry about whats going on in Israel. It's none of your business." You would scoff, and rightfully so. You probably would respond that because the events surrounding the Jews and Muslims DO have the chance of effecting me, it IS my business and I DO worry about it. You would be absolutely right.

Non-Christians and/or people who support homosexuality would probably say the exact same thing. What Christians and/or people who are anti-homosexuality are doing in this country DOES relate to me and it most certainly IS my business.

Implying that someone doesn't have the right to an opinion or have the right to express that opinion because they do not follow the ideology of the topic is dangerously close to shutting down viewpoints simply because they oppose yours. I'm sure that you do not mean that...but that was the impression I got from this statement.

 

[Gunny]

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.

So where does it end? Larkinn and DCD are attacking the church's bigotry' which, is bigotry in and of itself.

So what makes you, or them ANY different than the church? Intolerance is intolerance.

They church has as much right to believe what they want as you do.

 

[jillian]

And that is why the founders, in their wisdom, gave us the FIRST AMENDMENT...."freedom OF Religion"....to stop elitists from the left from imposing their brand of bigotry on the rest...

Main Entry: big·ot

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Example....the Libs and Dims treatment of Bush and company, Conservatives in general, and anyone else that fails to believe as they do....

I'm an elitist? Because I think people should be inclusive?

Again, do take the time to read. I never said that the church didn't have the right to exercise its First Amendment freedom of religion (though for the life of me, I fail to see what hatred of gays has to do with religion, but there ya go).

The observation of those of us who are critical of what the Church did is that they were WRONG... not that they had no right to their hatred.

And if you're so much of a putz that instead of addressing that issue and use it as a "bash libs" opportunity, then I'd say your argument is already lost.

 

[Alpha1]

Alpha1 Wrote:


I see where you are going with this...and in part, you are right. The church had the right to deny this family the funeral they had originally promised them.

Where the argument comes in is here: Not many (in fact, I'm not sure that anyone has) here have argued that the church didn't have the right to do this - they are simply arguing that the church shouldn't have denied the family the funeral.

While you can disagree with those who hold this opinion - it IS important to remember that they are not saying that the church does not have the right to do this, they are not arguing that this right should be taken away from the church...they are saying that the church should not have exercised that right for a number of reasons.

I understand your view, Gem....if you read my post on WHY this Church acted the way it did, it should be clear...they had not only the right to deny this service, but the duty to deny it....especially in light of this family's demands

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm an elitist? Because I think people should be inclusive?

Again, do take the time to read. I never said that the church didn't have the right to exercise its First Amendment freedom of religion (though for the life of me, I fail to see what hatred of gays has to do with religion, but there ya go).

The observation of those of us who are critical of what the Church did is that they were WRONG... not that they had no right to their hatred.

And if you're so much of a putz that instead of addressing that issue and use it as a "bash libs" opportunity, then I'd say your argument is already lost.

Hatred? They hated them so MUCH they gave them food, arranged a place for them to hold the service and provided a tape for them to use, yup absolute homophobia at its worst. Whats next? Inviting them to dinner so they can bore them to death with religious talk?

 

[Gunny]

You are the one who insists on whining and bitching when I talk about word definitions and who continually uses abnormal incorrectly.



No, you didn't. It was a bunch of posturing rhetoric based on no substance at all. You continually spout the term abnormal, while having no idea what it means.



Then don't respond to me, and fuck off.



Excuse me? I have said over and over this is not a freedom of speech issue and that they have a right to say/do whatever they want. Try reading what I say before you attempt to label me and maybe next time you'll be able to get in the general ballpark.



If you aren't a homosexual, don't worry about what homosexuals are doing. It's none of your business.

I've got a better idea for you, liberal scumsucker ... YOU fuck off ... When you can present an argument with any kind of objectivity, intelligence and honesty, I might consider debating it with you. SO long as you do nothing but play dishonest semantics, you aren't worth my time.

Any fucking third-grader can spot the bullshit a mile wide and equally as long jsut debating you once.

let me know what part of that you don't understand.

 

[jillian]

So where does it end? Larkinn and DCD are attacking the church's bigotry' which, is bigotry in and of itself.

So what makes you, or them ANY different than the church? Intolerance is intolerance.

They church has as much right to believe what they want as you do.

It is not bigotry to call people on bigotry... even if it is bigotry of a Church. This is no different than one calling white supremacits bigots isn't bigotry.

The Church has every right to believe what it wishes. That doesn't relieve them of responsibility for their actions or make them immune from comment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not bigotry to call people on bigotry... even if it is bigotry of a Church. This is no different than one calling white supremacits bigots isn't bigotry.

It is not bigotry. But then you can not understand then can you?

 

[Larkinn]

So where does it end? Larkinn and DCD are attacking the church's bigotry' which, is bigotry in and of itself.

This is incredibly asinine and makes no sense.

So what makes you, or them ANY different than the church? Intolerance is intolerance.

Intolerance is intolerance, but the difference is based on the reasons for the intolerance, and the effects of the intolerance. Not that I own a funeral home, but if I did I would surely allow church officials, and even homophobes like you, to have a funeral there. I, in a sense, run a business and I would surely allow Christians, homophobes, bigots, etc, to engage my services. I much prefer dealing with decent people, but I don't treat people differently because of their beliefs.

They church has as much right to believe what they want as you do.

Yes they do. So stop spewing this shit about how we are infringing on their freedom of speech.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny Wrote:


Come on now, this is just silly. Just like you and I comment on things and people that have nothing to do with us all the time, non-Christians can and should comment on Christian-related events and ideas...free exchange of ideas is so important and it is why boards like this one are interesting places.

If I said to you: "If you're not a Muslim or a Jew, don't worry about whats going on in Israel. It's none of your business." You would scoff, and rightfully so. You probably would respond that because the events surrounding the Jews and Muslims DO have the chance of effecting me, it IS my business and I DO worry about it. You would be absolutely right.

Non-Christians and/or people who support homosexuality would probably say the exact same thing. What Christians and/or people who are anti-homosexuality are doing in this country DOES relate to me and it most certainly IS my business.

Implying that someone doesn't have the right to an opinion or have the right to express that opinion because they do not follow the ideology of the topic is dangerously close to shutting down viewpoints simply because they oppose yours. I'm sure that you do not mean that...but that was the impression I got from this statement.

Myabe people ought to start cleaning up their own trashy houses before worrying about how everyone else keeps house.

 

[Larkinn]

I've got a better idea for you, liberal scumsucker ... YOU fuck off ... When you can present an argument with any kind of objectivity, intelligence and honesty, I might consider debating it with you. SO long as you do nothing but play dishonest semantics, you aren't worth my time.

The large majority of my arguments have those. Your idiocy and passion blind you to simple reality. 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.

Any fucking third-grader can spot the bullshit a mile wide and equally as long jsut debating you once.

Then, as I said before, fuck off. I really don't give a fuck if you don't address my points. You've shown yourself to be a complete jackass. But really, if you are only going to address my points in so far as to say "I'm not going to address your points", don't bother. Bitching and whining about how I'm not worth your oh so precious time sort of makes you look like a lying asshole when you continue on and on to keep bitching and whining about how I'm not worth your time. If you so believe that, then shut the hell up already.

let me know what part of that you don't understand.

Oh, I understand all of it. Its fucking pathetic that your hatred drives you to such irrational moronic beliefs. At base you are a decent human beings, but the thought of homosexuality seems to drive you into some sort of rage where any sort of logic or intellect escapes you.

 

[Alpha1]

I'm an elitist? Because I think people should be inclusive?

Again, do take the time to read. I never said that the church didn't have the right to exercise its First Amendment freedom of religion (though for the life of me, I fail to see what hatred of gays has to do with religion, but there ya go).

The observation of those of us who are critical of what the Church did is that they were WRONG... not that they had no right to their hatred.

And if you're so much of a putz that instead of addressing that issue and use it as a "bash libs" opportunity, then I'd say your argument is already lost.

The Church showed absolutely NO HATRED at all, even going so far as to offer to pay the family for going to another more appropriate location...so its you that mis-states the facts .... in the Church's eyes, the family's demands couldn't be met without compromising there religious beliefs...seems to me, the family wanted to celibate his homosexuality....rather than have a simple religious funeral....

 

[Larkinn]

Myabe people ought to start cleaning up their own trashy houses before worrying about how everyone else keeps house.

I agree. Perhaps Christianity and the churches should stop molesting little boys before trying to condemn others on their sexual behavior.

 

[Larkinn]

The Church showed absolutely NO HATRED at all, even going so far as to offer to pay the family for going to another more appropriate location...so its you that mis-states the facts .... in the Church's eyes, the family's demands couldn't be met without compromising there religious beliefs...seems to me, the family wanted to celibate his homosexuality....rather than have a simple religious funeral....

Is it your view that most funerals completely ignore the contributions of a loved one to the diseased's life? Because that is basically what the church wanted to do.

 

[jillian]

The Church showed absolutely NO HATRED at all, even going so far as to offer to pay the family for going to another more appropriate location...so its you that mis-states the facts .... in the Church's eyes, the family's demands couldn't be met without compromising there religious beliefs...seems to me, the family wanted to celibate his homosexuality....rather than have a simple religious funeral....

What if the church felt that it shouldn't bury someone who had a bi-racial marriage and suggested that the family "find more appropriate location"? Would you still say that wasn't hatred?

Get it now?

 

[DeadCanDance]

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

LOL

This is my nomination for most foolish post EVER!

Hey dude, if you ain't a liberal, don't worry about what liberals are doing. If you're not an iraqi, don't worry about what Iraqis are doing.

That church has a right to do what they did. I have a right to point out their bigotry and hypocrisy. They explicitly choose to be "shocked" about homosexuality, but they hold other sins in the bible to a different standard. Like the "abomination" and prohibition against eating pigs.

Like I said, fundamentalists in the 1960s pointed to the bible, to justify seperation of the races, and prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. Its the same thing they're doing here.

 

[Larkinn]

By the way...another viewpoint...

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/08/10/635#comment-1590

I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations.

First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil’s partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so. At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration.

On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.

Cecil’s brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. Our officiator was a baptist minister. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK.

On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil’s brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something had gone wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made.

Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil’s niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn’t allow. Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn’t think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected.

The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil’s obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July. The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends.

To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided. If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil’s remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.