Church Will Not Hold Gay Service

[Smoke]

i thought that the term Queer was offensive to you guys.

Depends on context. Definitely offensive if said contemptuously, but what's not?

"LGBT" or some variant (I've seen "LGBTIQ," for instance) is usually safer, and "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" or "transgendered" (or "transgender," depending on who you ask) is usually preferred when referring to any one individual.

I actually prefer "queer," but it's true that a lot of LGBT folks find it highly offensive. Years ago we had a gay bar in South Carolina called DV8. I thought it was a clever name, but a few people boycotted it because they found the name offensive.

It's kind of a sensitive area sometimes, much like the question of what you should call Americans of African or mixed-African descent.

If you're not LGBT yourself, and especially if you oppose equal rights for us, it's probably more circumspect to say LGBT or "gay" or even "homosexual."

 

[Mister_T]

How much would you bet that Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps would get a "proper" Christian burial (with no objections), despite their constant, unrepentive sin of passing judgment?

 

[madhatter85]

Depends on context. Definitely offensive if said contemptuously, but what's not?

"LGBT" or some variant (I've seen "LGBTIQ," for instance) is usually safer, and "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" or "transgendered" (or "transgender," depending on who you ask) is usually preferred when referring to any one individual.

I actually prefer "queer," but it's true that a lot of LGBT folks find it highly offensive. Years ago we had a gay bar in South Carolina called DV8. I thought it was a clever name, but a few people boycotted it because they found the name offensive.

It's kind of a sensitive area sometimes, much like the question of what you should call Americans of African or mixed-African descent.

If you're not LGBT yourself, and especially if you oppose equal rights for us, it's probably more circumspect to say LGBT or "gay" or even "homosexual."

-Segway -
I'm not opposed to equal rights for you guys, just as everyone should have equal rights as an individual. I don't agree that you guys should be barred from hospital visits for eachother, proper burials or memorials ect...

it's just the marriage thing. no tax breaks shoudl be given, nothing, because there is no way you can reproduce being a homosexual couple. you have nothing to contribute to the procreation of the human race. you might try to throw out there that there are "barren" couples who are hederosexual but that is completely different, those people had no choice in the matter. Then again theres the argument that homosexuals always say "it wasn't our choice to be this way." yes it is, you have a choice to do everything, you weren't born that way, you decided it yourself.

some people have sexual urges toward somethign or another, but it is Always thier choice to act on it. (e.g. pedophiles, adulters, rapists) even things on a non, sexual nature, physical violence for example, peopel control thier anger even though they have violent urges. here i'm talkign about choices and urges.

Then they say "But we can adopt" sure of course you can, but where did that baby come from? a hederosexual couple who couldn't/did want to take care of it.

Civil union, sure go ahead and have it, so that you can be a "couple" if you will but not under the flag of marriage. and it should be completely different and separate from the term, aspect, or side of marriage.

Back on topic -

A church/organization/conglomerate/company has the right to deny any material they find to be immoral, destructive, or harrasing, from being played in thier buildings.

if the family insisted on showing this material then i can understand why the church said no.

but for a normal memorial, they should go ahead with it.

 

[Mister_T]

I'm not opposed to equal rights for you guys

it's just the marriage thing.

Sounds a bit contradictory to me....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A church/organization/conglomerate/company has the right to deny any material they find to be immoral, destructive, or harrasing, from being played in thier buildings.

No organization or individual has the right to break an agreement once made; hence why we have civil law.*




*or half of it anyhow: contract law, though tort law also has to do with breaking of commitments.

 

[madhatter85]

Sounds a bit contradictory to me....

I'm not opposed to equal rights for you guys, just as everyone should have equal rights as an individual.

Sorry shoulda put a comma in there.....

As an individual, not a married couple

 

[madhatter85]

No organization or individual has the right to break an agreement once made; hence why we have civil law.*




*or half of it anyhow: contract law, though tort law also has to do with breaking of commitments.

that's funny, any contract can be broken. if the church accepted money for the service, they need to refund it and there should be no issues.

if they did not and it was just a "I'll do this for you cause i liek you" then what contract was there?

 

[Sunstone]

it's just the marriage thing. no tax breaks shoudl be given, nothing, because there is no way you can reproduce being a homosexual couple. you have nothing to contribute to the procreation of the human race.

Careful. Are you really prepared to argue the decisive purpose of marriage is procreation?

Then again theres the argument that homosexuals always say "it wasn't our choice to be this way." yes it is, you have a choice to do everything, you weren't born that way, you decided it yourself.

You seem to be suggesting that you believe yourself to have more and better knowledge of this matter than the scientists who have studied it. Can you provide some reason why we should believe you are increditably brighter and more informed than them?

 

[Buttercup]

-Segway -
it's just the marriage thing. no tax breaks shoudl be given, nothing, because there is no way you can reproduce being a homosexual couple.

The whole issue of homosexuality is a hot button topic between the most of the religious and gays...I just had a contentious thread I started go the same way this one is headed. It's difficult to not let your emotions get in the way.

You think being able to reproduce should be the guidelines for tax credits?

some people have sexual urges toward somethign or another, but it is Always thier choice to act on it. (e.g. pedophiles, adulters, rapists)

It is really inflammatory to lump gays in with that group of sexual deviants. Do you see that by chance? Gays have consentual sex. There's a huge difference.

Civil union, sure go ahead and have it, so that you can be a "couple" if you will but not under the flag of marriage. and it should be completely different and separate from the term, aspect, or side of marriage.

Why should marriage be defined by religion?

 

[Mister_T]

Sorry shoulda put a comma in there.....

As an individual, not a married couple

That doesn't change the contradiction: It's either you have equal rights as a citizen in this country or you don't. Every man is equal, no?

 

[madhatter85]

some people have sexual urges toward somethign or another, but it is Always thier choice to act on it. (e.g. pedophiles, adulters, rapists) even things on a non, sexual nature, physical violence for example, peopel control thier anger even though they have violent urges. here i'm talkign about choices and urges.

I edited my post above with this paragraph.

my reason for my statements are common sense and rationality

 

[madhatter85]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/55868-homosexuality-choice-not.html

for further debate on this subject please.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

-Segway -
I'm not opposed to equal rights for you guys, just as everyone should have equal rights as an individual. I don't agree that you guys should be barred from hospital visits for eachother, proper burials or memorials ect...

it's just the marriage thing. no tax breaks shoudl be given, nothing, because there is no way you can reproduce being a homosexual couple. you have nothing to contribute to the procreation of the human race. you might try to throw out there that there are "barren" couples who are hederosexual but that is completely different, those people had no choice in the matter. Then again theres the argument that homosexuals always say "it wasn't our choice to be this way." yes it is, you have a choice to do everything, you weren't born that way, you decided it yourself.

I see you contradicting yourself, MH. You think that the GLBT community shouldn't be barred from hospital visits, and yet you also believe that we shouldn't have the same marital rights as heterosexuals? Besides, if sexuality is such an easy choice, when was the last time a heterosexual had a yearning to be intimate with someone of the same gender?

Go on............choose your man crush. It shouldn't be that hard at all since it's the kind of choice that parallels the emotional investment of what kind of outfit I want to wear today.

some people have sexual urges toward somethign or another, but it is Always thier choice to act on it. (e.g. pedophiles, adulters, rapists) even things on a non, sexual nature, physical violence for example, peopel control thier anger even though they have violent urges. here i'm talkign about choices and urges.

First off, let's make a couple things straight with pedophilia and rape: these acts have so little to do with sexuality and so much to do with abuse of power. Comparing these two acts with homosexuality is extremely disingenuous. They are also crimes, whereas homosexuality is not. Adultery isn't even a crime, though it can sure make divorce proceedings pretty ugly..........

Then they say "But we can adopt" sure of course you can, but where did that baby come from? a hederosexual couple who couldn't/did want to take care of it.

Civil union, sure go ahead and have it, so that you can be a "couple" if you will but not under the flag of marriage. and it should be completely different and separate from the term, aspect, or side of marriage.

There's a lot more to the story when it comes to adoption realities. I suggest you do some homework and come back with a more realistic perspective on just where babies for adoption really come from.............are they really from "couples"?

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.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Sunstone]

my reason for my statements are common sense and rationality

Does your understanding of what constitutes "common sense and rationality" extend to accepting the findings of the world's scientists? Or, do you somehow fancy that the world's scientists possess less common sense and rationality than you yourself do?

 

[MaddLlama]

-Segway -

Why does every discussion involving homosexuality always have to end up here?

Can we have just one that doesn't? Just one....it's a simple request.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

that's funny, any contract can be broken. if the church accepted money for the service, they need to refund it and there should be no issues.

That's funny. I can tell you're not a lawyer.

Say you own a concrete company. The morning of the big pour for a new freeway bridge, you decide that you don't want to show up. Do you think that contractor would be happy with you just giving back his cheque for a few thousand dollars when he's paying several times that per hour for people and equipment to sit around idle, and has to pay a huge penalty to the DOT for finishing the project late?

Once a person or an organization makes a valid agreement, that's it. They're on the hook legally for their actions and for ALL the damages that reasonably result from them not meeting their obligations, unless the agreement specifically limits damages.

if they did not and it was just a "I'll do this for you cause i liek you" then what contract was there?

If money changed hands (and I would think it odd if it weren't, since a payment to the church is customary for any sort of private service in every church I know of), then there was an agreement... whether or not anything was actually signed.

Even if it was done as a freebie, I personally think the church had a moral duty to follow through on its promise.

 

[Booko]

Why should marriage be defined by religion?

More to the point, why should the state have any interest in the definition of a marriage? That's always been a religious issues. Let religions define marriages within their own groups.

Let the state grant civil unions as a matter of contract law between individuals who want to throw in their assets together.

Really, it seems a simple way to satisfy the legal needs of those in a relationship, to the mutual protection and support for each other, without trampling on anyone's religious beliefs.

 

[Booko]

If money changed hands (and I would think it odd if it weren't, since a payment to the church is customary for any sort of private service in every church I know of), then there was an agreement... whether or not anything was actually signed.

The churches I've been really well acquainted with don't charge money for weddings or funerals. It is customary to give a donation to the church, but that is not payment for services rendered and there is no legal obligation to donate anything.

There is a general recognition that some people may be without means, but being married and buried are not entirely optional.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The churches I've been really well acquainted with don't charge money for weddings or funerals. It is customary to give a donation to the church, but that is not payment for services rendered and there is no legal obligation to donate anything.

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

 

[rocka21]

The family desired an associate of an openly homosexual choir to officiate the service and for the choir to sing. They also desired an open microphone format to allow

anyone in attendance to speak. High Point Church ministers would not be directing or have control over what was said or emphasized. It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church – which is in obvious contradiction to the scripture and therefore our religious convictions.
Once this information was made known to the High Point staff, a decision was made to make alternative arrangements, at the expense of the church, that would meet the needs of the family and not subject our sanctuary to being used for a memorial service where homosexuality would be celebrated. The family was informed of the decision.

from the churches web site.


now this story makes is alittle clear