Texas church cancels funeral for gay man

[DSM4Life]

Texas church that agreed to host a man's funeral reneged on its promise after learning that the man was gay, according to The Dallas Morning News. Cecil Sinclair's funeral was to be held Thursday at the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas.

Sinclair was diagnosed with a heart condition six years ago and died Monday at age 46. His brother, Lee, is a member of High Point Church. The pastor at the church is the Reverend Gary Simons, brother-in-law of nationally known preacher Joel Osteen.

Members of the High Point Church prayed for Sinclair after his diagnosis. When he died of an infection from a surgery intended to sustain him for a heart transplant, a member of the church staff was immediately sent to minister to the family, the article said.

Church officials planned a 100-guest meal and a slide show to commemorate Sinclair's life. Some of the photos his family selected, however, proved too controversial for church members.

"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," Simons told the Morning News. "My ministry associates were taken aback."

There was also a dispute in the officiating and sequence of the memorial service, which Sinclair's mother, Eva Bowers, said could have been rectified.

In the end, the nondenominational church said it would not hold the funeral because Sinclair was gay, which went against High Point's doctrine.

"Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?" Simons said in the article. "We can't."

According to the article, he was a Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm and a singer in the Turtle Creek Chorale. (The Advocate)



ref http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47984.asp

[godkilla]

church is against gays, so asking them to hold a funeral with a slide show of the deceased kissing another man is kinda ridiculous. why would you want your funeral to be held in a place where they think your lifestyle is against god and will ultimately lead you to hell anyways.

[Logan13]

church is against gays, so asking them to hold a funeral with a slide show of the deceased kissing another man is kinda ridiculous. why would you want your funeral to be held in a place where they think your lifestyle is against god and will ultimately lead you to hell anyways.

well put.......

[Superhuman]

They would have held the funeral if the family hadn't insisted on showing images of homosexuality... if a straight person died and their family wanted to show pictures of drinking and drug use or violence that would NOT be allowed either. The fact that the family put up a fight about the sinful pictures in question made the church officials decide that it's not worth the struggle and cancelled the whole event. NO sinful pictures would be allowed, gay or not.

[Panzerfaust]

Give that church a medal.

[Red Ketchup]

Well, regardless of what I think about religion, churches or homosexuality...

Why the heck would anyone want to hold any type of ceremony (funeral or marriage) in a church where they are not welcome??? I mean seriously!

I just don't get people sometimes...

Red

[helium3]

that kind of crap dont belong in a church.how inappropriate.

even if homosexuality isnt a crime against god,its a crime against nature period!

[Tock]

even if homosexuality isnt a crime against god,its a crime against nature period!

How so?

Does it melt the polar ice caps? Does it cause the planet to wobble on it axis? What is the damage against "nature" caused by gay sex?

[RA]

How so?

Does it melt the polar ice caps? Does it cause the planet to wobble on it axis? What is the damage against "nature" caused by gay sex?

[Tock]

Looks like it's a he-said / she-said thing . . .

Church officials planned a 100-guest meal and a slide show to commemorate Sinclair's life. Some of the photos his family selected, however, proved too controversial for church members.

"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," Simons told the Morning News. "My ministry associates were taken aback."

ref http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47984.asp

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4200cfb.html
The family also disputes Mr. Simon's statement last week that "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" were among photos relatives submitted for a church-produced memorial slideshow. A CD of the photos the family says it gave the church does not include such images.


Tim Seelig, the longtime conductor of the Turtle Creek Chorale who led Mr. Sinclair's memorial service, said he was never contacted by High Point staff about his plans.

"They never asked what we were going to sing," said Dr. Seelig, who was a Baptist music minister before becoming leader of Turtle Creek two decades ago. "And 'Amazing Grace' – that's hardy a gay pride rally song. I'm real clear as to what is appropriate at a church memorial service and what is not."


Nevertheless, IMHO, it's the church's right to have a "heterosexuals-only" rule. It's dumb, but hey, they have the right to be dumb.

[RA]

Im not sure what exactly they expected going to a church in Texas.

[Tock]

Im not sure what exactly they expected going to a church in Texas.

Evidently, a family member attended that church, and the church told him that they'd do a service for free. The "G" word came up, and the service was off. C'est la vie.

[Panzerfaust]

How so?

Does it melt the polar ice caps? Does it cause the planet to wobble on it axis? What is the damage against "nature" caused by gay sex?

It obviously does not pass on a persons blood line, which in turn is how all living things survive and guarantee their future.

[helium3]

How so?

Does it melt the polar ice caps? Does it cause the planet to wobble on it axis? What is the damage against "nature" caused by gay sex?

ok ill spell it out. the procreation of our or any other species is a result of evolutionary changes, natures way of ensuring the survival of a species(a crude but somewhat accurate description).

when children can be concieved by shoving ones c##k up another mans ahole then nature will have fine tuned the process further, but until then it just goes against what is meant to be.if we were all homosexual in the strictist sense there would be no more children and no more homosapiens.







as it happens im not homophobic, i just dont agree with homosexuality

[gixxerboy1]

ok ill spell it out. the procreation of our or any other species is a result of evolutionary changes, natures way of ensuring the survival of a species(a crude but somewhat accurate description).

when children can be concieved by shoving ones c##k up another mans ahole then nature will have fine tuned the process further, but until then it just goes against what is meant to be.if we were all homosexual in the strictist sense there would be no more children and no more homosapiens.







as it happens im not homophobic, i just dont agree with homosexuality

Seriously think about what you are saying. So if they make gay marriage legal all of a sudden everyone is going to turn homosexual and end the world?

BTW. I DONT EVER want kids. When my girl and i were engaged i was going to get fixed. Should we still be allowed to marry? I mean it could end the world.

[DSM4Life]

ok ill spell it out. the procreation of our or any other species is a result of evolutionary changes, natures way of ensuring the survival of a species(a crude but somewhat accurate description).

when children can be concieved by shoving ones c##k up another mans ahole then nature will have fine tuned the process further, but until then it just goes against what is meant to be.if we were all homosexual in the strictist sense there would be no more children and no more homosapiens.







as it happens im not homophobic, i just dont agree with homosexuality

There is nothing wrong with not agreeing but must you sound so unintelligent when replying?

[RA]

ok ill spell it out. the procreation of our or any other species is a result of evolutionary changes, natures way of ensuring the survival of a species(a crude but somewhat accurate description).

when children can be concieved by shoving ones c##k up another mans ahole then nature will have fine tuned the process further, but until then it just goes against what is meant to be.if we were all homosexual in the strictist sense there would be no more children and no more homosapiens.

as it happens im not homophobic, i just dont agree with homosexuality

Theres no need to sound so belligerent about it bro.

[Tock]

if we were all homosexual in the strictist sense there would be no more children and no more homosapiens.

Ya, but only about 3% of us are gay, and if the planet's population increase was slowed by 3%, that's not really gonna affect much of anything, will it?

Actually, the day will probably come when strict controls on human reproduction will be set in place. Like in China, where they have so many people they allow only 1 child per couple.
The planet's population is gonna double in another 40 years or so. And it will double again in another 30 years or so after that. And it will keep doubling faster and faster until most of us are wiped out through war or famine or plague or something awful.


So, sure, if everyone suddenly turned gay and if every gay person subsequently refused to reproduce, then the human race would die out. But seriously, what are the chances of that happening?

[bpm1]

They would have held the funeral if the family hadn't insisted on showing images of homosexuality... if a straight person died and their family wanted to show pictures of drinking and drug use or violence that would NOT be allowed either. The fact that the family put up a fight about the sinful pictures in question made the church officials decide that it's not worth the struggle and cancelled the whole event. NO sinful pictures would be allowed, gay or not.

good post, i agree 100%

[Tock]

They would have held the funeral if the family hadn't insisted on showing images of homosexuality... if a straight person died and their family wanted to show pictures of drinking and drug use or violence that would NOT be allowed either. The fact that the family put up a fight about the sinful pictures in question made the church officials decide that it's not worth the struggle and cancelled the whole event. NO sinful pictures would be allowed, gay or not.

From what the bereaved family is saying, that might not be true:

August 10, 2007
http://cbs11tv.com/religion/local_story_222194206.html

But Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging. She said one showed them sitting on a couch, but "it could have been him and his brother if you didn't know them."


August 15, 2007
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...o.32404b1.html

The family also disputes Mr. Simon's statement last week that "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" were among photos relatives submitted for a church-produced memorial slideshow. A CD of the photos the family says it gave the church does not include such images.

Mr. Simons did not address this point Sunday.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I still support the right of the church to deny funerals to anyone for any reason, or even for no reason. Of course, when they do, it just makes 'em look stupid.

[Roidal]

Questioning a dead man's sexual orientation for just a funeral seems a bit odd don't you think? I suspect the church is playing politics here... so just look for another church.

[helium3]

you guys need to chill out!

and as far as sounding off...i just said nature did not intend for us to procreate in this manner, how unintelligent is that?really? i was simply overstating the case.

i actually dont have a problem with gays in general as long as they keep their affairs out of my personal space.


as far as not wanting kids, that is a personal choice, nothing to do with having sexual incompatibilty issues between you and your wife/gf, so its a mute point.

[Superhuman]

From what the bereaved family is saying, that might not be true:

August 10, 2007
http://cbs11tv.com/religion/local_story_222194206.html

But Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging. She said one showed them sitting on a couch, but "it could have been him and his brother if you didn't know them."


August 15, 2007
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...o.32404b1.html

The family also disputes Mr. Simon's statement last week that "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" were among photos relatives submitted for a church-produced memorial slideshow. A CD of the photos the family says it gave the church does not include such images.

Mr. Simons did not address this point Sunday.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I still support the right of the church to deny funerals to anyone for any reason, or even for no reason. Of course, when they do, it just makes 'em look stupid.

hmmm... if they honestly didn't have any pictures of hugging, kissing, etc. then I don't see the freakin problem. So what if he was gay, that alone is no reason to not hold the funeral. Every human sins, it is our nature. Using the rationale the church is (not having his funeral since he lived a life of sin), then they shouldn't hold funerals for smokers and obese people who die of lung cancer and heart disease, as they obviously didn't treat there body as a temple. **** that... that church is in the wrong and THAT is partly what is deterring people from religion now.

[Tock]

you guys need to chill out!

and as far as sounding off...i just said nature did not intend for us to procreate in this manner, how unintelligent is that?really? i was simply overstating the case.

For years and years, homosexuality was considered a "Crime against Nature." One problem with calling anything a crime against nature is that it's impossible for the aggreived party to testify in court. Another problem is that anybody could say that any activity is a crime against nature. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Doesn't nature show that it is wrong for a man to wear his hair long?" IMHO, no, nature doesn't show that it is wrong for a man to wear long hair.
I could make a claim that it's a crime against nature for one person to commute 35 miles each way in a Hummer. Or I could claim that it's a crime against nature to wear white after Labor Day.

Anyway, this "Crime against Nature" doesn't hold water for much of anything. It may have worked for ancient theologians, but people aren't quite a superstitious and we're better educated than folks used to be 1600 years ago.

[DSM4Life]

What I find humorous is all this talk about what natures plan is/was when in reality you and I have no ****ing clue about it.

[RA]

Here I thought we were done with this subj

[Flagg]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I have wondered wether homosexual people have something wrong with them, like something missing in their genetic makeup. Hear me out.

Like Helium said, nature doesn't work like that. Usually for the species to continue, two animals from different genders must reproduce. You don't find homosexuality in the animal world. Now I know dogs and certain chimps have shown "gay characteristics" but those same animals would still **** a female version of their own kind..I just put those animals down to being overtly horny.

[RA]

Along time ago I did a paper on homosexuality. According to what I read there is an area in the brain that is the same size in women and homosexual men and larger in straight men. I cant even remember the name..lol but it made me think its certainly not a "choice"

[RA]

..and I know a guy that is very very feminine and its no act. He was certainly born with a very different genetic makeup then me.

[Flagg]

Along time ago I did a paper on homosexuality. According to what I read there is an area in the brain that is the same size in women and homosexual men and larger in straight men. I cant even remember the name..lol but it made me think its certainly not a "choice"

I think I read about something similiar once. Does that mean to say its an "abnormaility"? I don't know, but if only 3% of the population are gay I can't say that's normal.

Before I get attacked for that, I don't have any bigoted views against gays, I dont personally think they are abnormal, im just looking at this from a more scientific point of view.

[helium3]

What I find humorous is all this talk about what natures plan is/was when in reality you and I have no ****ing clue about it.

how did you draw this conclusion? perhaps you should read charles darwins book, nature is everywhere.

actually im done with this thread as your avy is making me nauseous, which of course you didnt choose in order to rub "some" people up the wrong way.freedom do what i what...yata yata.oooh maybe you could label me a homophobe if it makes you feel better, being gay is still a defect period! soory if that offends anyone but thats just my opinion.maybe ive had some bad experiences over the years which has tainted my view.

i just cant help thinking back to when i was at disney which happened to coinside with national gay day.blokes walking round in speedos touching each other up, making lewd jestures at people and these were not at all isolated incidents.families leaving in droves, kids crying their eyes out.great fun, it kind of put me off after that.although the gay women didnt seem to be quite as rowdy.


spend less time being gay and more time being a man.

[RA]

I think I read about something similiar once. Does that mean to say its an "abnormaility"? I don't know, but if only 3% of the population are gay I can't say that's normal.

Depending on your definition of normal I suppose you could..

[Logan13]

spend less time being gay and more time being a man.

EXACTLY...........!

[DSM4Life]

how did you draw this conclusion? perhaps you should read charles darwins book, nature is everywhere.

actually im done with this thread as your avy is making me nauseous, which of course you didnt choose in order to rub "some" people up the wrong way.freedom do what i what...yata yata.oooh maybe you could label me a homophobe if it makes you feel better, being gay is still a defect period! soory if that offends anyone but thats just my opinion.maybe ive had some bad experiences over the years which has tainted my view.

i just cant help thinking back to when i was at disney which happened to coinside with national gay day.blokes walking round in speedos touching each other up, making lewd jestures at people and these were not at all isolated incidents.families leaving in droves, kids crying their eyes out.great fun, it kind of put me off after that.although the gay women didnt seem to be quite as rowdy.


spend less time being gay and more time being a man.

Oh, i wasn't aware that all you had to do was read one book to understand the what/where/when/why and how of nature.

I don't label you a homophobe. Maybe a goofball with an opinion but not a homophobe. I think that if you reworded a lot of your statements and didn't talk down to people we would respect what you have to say.

So you went on gay day and you blame the gays on your bad day. Think about that one.

[DSM4Life]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I have wondered wether homosexual people have something wrong with them, like something missing in their genetic makeup. Hear me out.

Like Helium said, nature doesn't work like that. Usually for the species to continue, two animals from different genders must reproduce. You don't find homosexuality in the animal world. Now I know dogs and certain chimps have shown "gay characteristics" but those same animals would still **** a female version of their own kind..I just put those animals down to being overtly horny.

Do more research because you in fact DO find it in with animals in the wild.

[godkilla]

ok now ive seen homo animals b4, but as far as i know its only cause they are in "heat" and there are not any females around. can anyone prove otherwise? like a male animal that ****s other males when there is plenty of females around?!

[Flagg]

Do more research because you in fact DO find it in with animals in the wild.

We are all animals essentially. And no, you do not find homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Some animals can reproduce asexually and some can infact change their gender to adapt to their surroundings but there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Why? Because the species would die. Now some animals like I said, dogs and chimps show traits of bisexuality prehaps but that is down to some horny animal needing to **** something, anything. Some animals, like humans, enjoy sex you know.

However you are taking what I have put down personally when i'm merely stating a fact. The human race is the most unique animal on the planet and the most flawed. We are self destructive by nature and prehaps some of us being gay contributes to that self destruction.

[Flagg]

ok now ive seen homo animals b4, but as far as i know its only cause they are in "heat" and there are not any females around. can anyone prove otherwise? like a male animal that ****s other males when there is plenty of females around?!

Exactly, that's what I was trying to say earlier. If it happens its only because no females are around at present. There is no animal on this planet that chooses to willingly stay and find only same sex animals of its kind to ****.

[DSM4Life]

This article makes a good point for the human Vs animal comparison

Homosexual behavior among animals

It is said that 450 species of animals have been documented as exhibiting homosexual behavior. So now the question is: Is homosexuality among humans natural?


Actually, I think the bigger question is: Are humans in the animal kingdom?

The article lists penguins, apes, dolphins, and some birds as examples. Apes really draw attention because of their close resemblance to humans. But an ape is not human.

Ask yourself: Do you consider yourself a mere animal? Don't you believe there's a soul in you, something that makes you who you are, and something that no animal has? Many homosexual activists argue for their "natural" behavior by using such studies in the animal kingdom. It is sad that they would stoop themselves down to the level of animals in order to justify their sexual "orientation" and behavior.

We all know that animals kill their own and even devour their own. Would that justify a murderer to commit the crime? What would the judge - or yourself - think when the murderer's defense attorney says that some species of monkeys kill their own all the time in the wild, and that's why it's "natural" for his client to commit murder. It would sound absolutely ludicrous, wouldn't it?!

Behavioral studies of animals are not about humans. Humans know good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, morality vs. immorality. It is in our hearts, in our souls, although sometimes we reject it. That is what makes us human.

ref. http://homepage.mac.com/eliu500/iblo...627/index.html

[QuieTSToRM33]

I can't believe I just read top to bottom of this nonsense.