Church Will Not Hold Gay Service

[rocka21]

The family offered to remove the picture.



Yes, the church is wrong because they should have specified beforehand if they wanted their people speaking or having any other part in the service.



Exactly. We'd talk with you and make sure that your beliefs somewhat aligned with ours BEFORE we invited you, not AFTER.

there you go again!

the family offered to remove the picture? i thought we were taking the church account as %100 true? they did not say that. or did you forget again?


but i think we both agree, the church should have pressed the issue to see exactly what kind of service it would be. I think this could have all been avoided in the beginning. They were wrong for the day before canceling. I agree.:yes:

 

[MaddLlama]

I think the family were victims of their own ignorance and the pastor's stupidity.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to have a funeral for a gay family member anywhere near any church. The potential for bigotry is too great, not to mention that to me it would seem to be like spitting on the persons grave even before they were buried.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

there you go again!

the family offered to remove the picture? i thought we were taking the church account as %100 true? they did not say that. or did you forget again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed. I wouldn't want to have a funeral for a gay family member anywhere near any church. The potential for bigotry is too great, not to mention that to me it would seem to be like spitting on the persons grave even before they were buried.

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. Some churches are very supportive of gay rights... hence why it can't be automatically concluded what a non-denominational church's stance is on the issue, which is I think is part of the cause of this situation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Indeed. I wouldn't want to have a funeral for a gay family member anywhere near any church. The potential for bigotry is too great, not to mention that to me it would seem to be like spitting on the persons grave even before they were buried.

It would definately be something to talk with the pastor about, even if the gay person was a member of the church. There are many gays who are members of (1) churches who openly oppose homosexual acts but affirm homosexuals and (2) churches that openly and actively hate gays. While there may be acts of hatred that are more vile than what this church did, I cannot think of any.

There may actually be a possibility for a lawsuit because a verbal agreement is legally binding in Texas. It would be a wonderfully symbolic gesture. When pastors and churches ruthlessly go back on their word, it cuts people deeply. They should be slapped on the wrist a little to motivate them to change their policy at the very least to a more humane method of qualifying people for funerals.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. Some churches are very supportive of gay rights... hence why it can't be automatically concluded what a non-denominational church's stance is on the issue, which is I think is part of the cause of this situation.

Since support for homosexuality in churches is so rare, it would be apparent on the church's website. Otherwise the assumption that homosexuals are unwelcome is quite safe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since support for homosexuality in churches is so rare, it would be apparent on the church's website. Otherwise the assumption that homosexuals are unwelcome is quite safe.

I've looked through the church's web site. The only mention of homosexuality I've been able to find is in their response to this incident.

Edit: Hang on... I see what you're saying: it's so uncommon, it'd be emphasized if it were there, right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've looked through the church's web site. The only mention of homosexuality I've been able to find is in their response to this incident.

Like I said, it's safe to assume that a church opposes homosexuals unless they say that they support them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Edit: Hang on... I see what you're saying: it's so uncommon, it'd be emphasized if it were there, right?

Exactly.

 

[sojourner]

The church is clearly at fault here. The minister should have just "sucked it up" and done what they said they would do, minus any objectionable and inappropriate subject matter. Regardless of what the church "believes." They said they would do it, they should do it. If this was such a big issue, they should have had the family sit down to cover all those bases beforehand. As Angellous said, it's just basic, common ministry stuff.

 

[madhatter85]

the church should have continued the service, but not shown any material they felt was inappropriate to be shown in thier church.

but instead they jsut ran away and didn't even say anything

 

[Smoke]

Indeed. I wouldn't want to have a funeral for a gay family member anywhere near any church. The potential for bigotry is too great, not to mention that to me it would seem to be like spitting on the persons grave even before they were buried.

I don't believe in life after death, but my family and friends do, and I've told them if any clergyman of any description presides at my funeral, or is allowed to address my funeral on the subject of religion, and there's any way at all I can haunt them, I will.

 

[madhatter85]

I don't believe in life after death, but my family and friends do, and I've told them if any clergyman of any description presides at my funeral, or is allowed to address my funeral on the subject of religion, and there's any way at all I can haunt them, I will.

but if there's no life after death then you won't be able to haunt them. and if you can hant them then that would mean you are wrong about no life after death.