Church Will Not Hold Gay Service

[9-10ths_Penguin]

now this story makes is alittle clear

Not really. All of the less formal (i.e. not full-blown mass) funerals I've been to had an opportunity for anyone to walk up to the lectern and say a few words about the deceased. IMO, a microphone for anyone to use is a reasonable and normal request.

And as I pointed out earlier, the Turtle Creek Chorale is not an "openly gay choir"; their membership is open to all. If you're worried about the image they'd project, have a look at the chorus' web site.

Also:

- do you think the idea of a microphone was sprung on the church right before the funeral?
- if you think it was a last-minute request, do you think the family would have considered it a "deal-breaker"?

 

[Booko]

And, truly, has the term "marriage" ALWAYS been defined as simply "one man, one woman"? Perhaps another round homework looking into the social history of how marriage has evolved to fit human needs is needed.

You showed such restraint not suggesting madhatter begin by examining the history of his own denomination.

 

[Booko]

Some churches do, IMO, cross over the line and directly tie their services to "voluntary" (wink wink) donations.

Oh, I know there are some that do cross over into the "wink wink" category, but I've not personally dealt with any of those yet. I would be unlikely to make any arrangements with any church that did that, frankly. I'd go rent a hall instead.

Well, it's not like I have much cause to worry about that, though, at least not until my mother passes on, and probably not at all after that.

Not to get far off the subject, but if any non-Baha'is want a free wedding, you can get one from us. We're not allowed to take contributions from non-Baha'is anyway, which is a great safety feature. Of course you'd have to comply with Baha'i laws regarding marriage and that might be a sticking point.

However, I had a deeper look and in the statement on the church's web site, they state that the funeral was offered free of charge.

Like I've said before, there was a collision of values here. They may not want to support people being actively homosexual, and that's their option. But to drop the funeral last minute like this, that violates principles of charity and compassion. That's what disgusts me the most about this whole thing. The better course would've been to continue on and not upset the family, and afterwards consult about how to handle any future situations, if they have some theological reasons for not wanting to have funeral services for someone who's actively gay.

 

[Booko]

Not really. All of the less formal (i.e. not full-blown mass) funerals I've been to had an opportunity for anyone to walk up to the lectern and say a few words about the deceased. IMO, a microphone for anyone to use is a reasonable and normal request.

I'm pretty used to Calvinist funerals which like most things Calvinist, are highly structured. I don't recall ever having an open mike, but then, they wouldn't. Open mike time is for coffee and cake in the basement of the church afterwards. The other Christian funerals I've been to have been mostly Catholic, and those were indeed full blown mass affairs. Again, no open mike.

But an open mike is common in other denomination's funerals, as you say. It's quite common in Baha'i funerals here, and that's so because many of the Baha'is come from Christian traditions where an open mike was de rigeur, so it seems a common enough cultural practice and nothing at all unusual.

 

[madhatter85]

You showed such restraint not suggesting madhatter begin by examining the history of his own denomination.

Poligamy was practiced by 2-5% of the entire body of the mormon church when it was actually practiced, and when it became illegal it was abolished completely over 120 years ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poligamy was practiced by 2-5% of the entire body of the mormon church when it was actually practiced, and when it became illegal it was abolished completely over 120 years ago.

But were those who practiced it wrong to do so?

 

[madhatter85]

But were those who practiced it wrong to do so?

No they were not, it is just as much church doctrine today as it was then. but we do not practice it because it is illegal and we are law abiding citizens. "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates and in sustaining, honoring, obeying and the law."

The practice of poligamy was in the bible, and abraham was granted many wives and concubines because he was blessed that his seed would prosper in the land and that was part of his calling on earth, that his seed would spread across the entire world.

In the Doctrine and covenants it states that no man shall take another wife unless his current wife gives her consent. and that if a man have 10 wives, he cannot take another unless all 10 wives give thier consent. that was how it was practiced. it was not some, "I want 30 wives so i can have them cause i want them"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No they were not, it is just as much church doctrine today as it was then. but we do not practice it because it is illegal and we are law abiding citizens. "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates and in sustaining, honoring, obeying and the law."

So, then, you concede that the entire idea of a marriage as "one man and one woman" comes from humanity's own laws, which, while perhaps authoritative, are subject to change and that this idea does not come from God's own unchanging Law?

 

[madhatter85]

So, then, you concede that the entire idea of a marriage as "one man and one woman" comes from humanity's own laws, which, while perhaps authoritative, are subject to change and that this idea does not come from God's own unchanging Law?

Humanity would not exist if everyone was gay.

"A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

that is church doctrine. god's own unchanging law. the same as Humanity's law. because the united states was founded upon religious principals. George washington? what religion was he? of course thier religious influence dictated the rules and laws of the land.

 

[Mike182]

Humanity would not exist if everyone was gay.

which is exactly why you should join my new campaign - it's a campaign to stop heterosexual couples who can't conceive from having the same rights as heterosexual couples who can, because if humanity couldn't conceive, it would not exist.

baloney.

 

[Mister_T]

Humanity would not exist if everyone was gay.

Humanity would also not exist if everyone was celibate. Does that make celibacy wrong? I think Paul and Jesus would say no.

Procreation is not a valid argument against homosexulaity.

 

[Storm]

Humanity would not exist if everyone was gay.

Which is why diversity is a good thing....

because the united states was founded upon religious principals. George washington? what religion was he? of course thier religious influence dictated the rules and laws of the land.

No, it wasn't. Jefferson was a deist, and the Founding Fathers made their stance quite clear in the Treaty of Tripoli:

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

America's founding as a "Christian nation" is the worst of historical revisionism, practiced by the willfully ignorant.

 

[madhatter85]

Humanity would also not exist if everyone was celibate. Does that make celibacy wrong? I think Paul and Jesus would say no.

Procreation is not a valid argument against homosexulaity.

too bad it's human nature to procreate and replenish the earth. hence the overwhelming evidence that opposite-sex procreation is written into our DNA, into iur ANATOMY. but ignore that. you want to try and prove thigns wrong. which you cant.

 

[madhatter85]

Which is why diversity is a good thing....

wrong, which is why heterosexual relations are a good thing that are written into our genetic code and our anatomy.

 

[Bishka]

. because the united states was founded upon religious principals. George washington? what religion was he? of course thier religious influence dictated the rules and laws of the land.

The United States was founded on the freedom of religion. To chose and to act in whatever way you would like; as long as you follow the laws of the land.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Humanity would not exist if everyone was gay.

Humanity would cease to exist if everyone was male, too. The fact that homosexuals naturally exist seems to indicate to me at least that homosexuality can naturally exist.

But what's your point?

"A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

So... living as a bachelor is a no-no too, hmm?

that is church doctrine. god's own unchanging law. the same as Humanity's law. because the united states was founded upon religious principals. George washington? what religion was he? of course thier religious influence dictated the rules and laws of the land.

Darn, Storm got to the Treaty of Tripoli before I did.

I doubt you'll be able to find any quote from Washington declaring himself to be a Christian; he seemed to be deliberately vague on his personal religious beliefs. In any case, though, the American founding fathers seemed clear in their aims of creating a country that did not have the inter-meshing of church and state of the one they were leaving, and of protecting the rights of the varied people in their new country to believe and act as each saw fit.

 

[madhatter85]

Humanity would also not exist if everyone was celibate. Does that make celibacy wrong? I think Paul and Jesus would say no.

Procreation is not a valid argument against homosexulaity.

How is it not a valid argument?

yes i think lifetime celibacy is wrong, i think you should be celibate only untill you are married. but that is my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

wrong, which is why heterosexual relations are a good thing that are written into our genetic code and our anatomy.

So God created lust and fornication (though only heterosexual lust and fornication, mind you) on purpose?

 

[Storm]

wrong, which is why heterosexual relations are a good thing that are written into our genetic code and our anatomy.

You think diversity is a bad thing?

 

[madhatter85]

Humanity would cease to exist if everyone was male, too. The fact that homosexuals naturally exist seems to indicate to me at least that homosexuality can naturally exist.
But what's your point?

there is no proof they naturaly exist, show it to me.

So... living as a bachelor is a no-no too, hmm?

That was not in the design of our human nature no.

I doubt you'll be able to find any quote from Washington declaring himself to be a Christian; he seemed to be deliberately vague on his personal religious beliefs. In any case, though, the American founding fathers seemed clear in their aims of creating a country that did not have the inter-meshing of church and state of the one they were leaving, and of protecting the rights of the varied people in their new country to believe and act as each saw fit.

blah blah blah, look at the laws, and tell me they don't mimic most of the ten commandments.