Another shining example of Christian Love [Archive]

ka5piu

08-12-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 12 2007,09:17)]Be careful now...

The church is a private organization that is 100% in the right not to engage in activities that go against their beliefs.

I find it without compassion and un-Christian-like as you all do, but I would rather see this happen, than the church being forced into doing something by a legislative entity.

This is religious freedom at work here men.
Hello.

How can you say it is "without compassion and un-Christian-like"?
The Church simply said that they could not allow pictures of homosexual actions in the Church.
In place, they offered to pay for a funeral parlour to have the services.
The Church was unwilling to allow the photographs on moral grounds.
Again, if the people in question were willing to skip the photographs and the speech on homosexual rights, everything would have been fine.
As far as being un-Christian-like, read about Jesus and the little thing about the people who came to have sex with him, males.

w2amr

08-12-2007, 05:10 PM

I'm surprised they didn't call for an exorcism.

W0UZR

08-12-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 12 2007,10:17)]Be careful now...

The church is a private organization that is 100% in the right not to engage in activities that go against their beliefs.

I find it without compassion and un-Christian-like as you all do, but I would rather see this happen, than the church being forced into doing something by a legislative entity.

This is religious freedom at work here men.
EXCELLENT !!

This is exactly right. I don't want to see the day where the gvnmt/courts will dictate decisions on these thing. On some things the Church does have the right to refuse service to anyone.

W0UZR

08-12-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 12 2007,09:17)]Be careful now...

The church is a private organization that is 100% in the right not to engage in activities that go against their beliefs.

I find it without compassion and un-Christian-like as you all do, but I would rather see this happen, than the church being forced into doing something by a legislative entity.

This is religious freedom at work here men.
Hello.

How can you say it is "without compassion and un-Christian-like"?
The Church simply said that they could not allow pictures of homosexual actions in the Church.
In place, they offered to pay for a funeral parlour to have the services.
The Church was unwilling to allow the photographs on moral grounds.
Again, if the people in question were willing to skip the photographs and the speech on homosexual rights, everything would have been fine.
As far as being un-Christian-like, read about Jesus and the little thing about the people who came to have sex with him, males.
Quote[/b] ]As far as being un-Christian-like, read about Jesus and the little thing about the people who came to have sex with him, males.

HuH?? #How is it I can't understand a single thing you say? #Where did people come to Jesus to have se,,,,,,,

NO #never mind............ #

# # # # # # # # # I donnwanna #know........

w2amr

08-12-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 12 2007,10:51)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 12 2007,10:17)]Be careful now...

The church is a private organization that is 100% in the right not to engage in activities that go against their beliefs.

I find it without compassion and un-Christian-like as you all do, but I would rather see this happen, than the church being forced into doing something by a legislative entity.

This is religious freedom at work here men.
EXCELLENT !!

# # # #This is exactly right. #I don't want to see the day where the gvnmt/courts will dictate decisions on these thing. #On some things the Church does have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Agreed. They should be free to pay taxes too.

al2n

08-12-2007, 06:19 PM

Is the church consistent?

Do they hold funeral services for those who had families out of wedlock?

I see many churches refuse services to homosexuals, but they have no issue when it is a heterosexual relationship that is taking place out of wedlock.

They are the same thing in God's eyes. Both are relationships that run contrary to Biblical faith. Adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, stealing, lies, being disobedient to parents, killing, and such are all equal in the eyes of God. There is no sin that ranks higher than the other. Man makes one sinful deed worse than another.

It is this us versus them mentality in the last 25 years that has turned many away from the church. And it is the same mentality that has allowed the divorce rate among Christians to equal that of non-Christians.

Jesus said that we should not point out the speck in our brothers eye when we have a log in our own.

KG4CGC

08-12-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 12 2007,06:19)]It is this us versus them mentality in the last 25 years that has turned many away from the church. And it is the same mentality that has allowed the divorce rate among Christians to equal that of non-Christians.
Thank You to Jerry Falwell.
He had to push. What happens when you keep pushing someone? They push back!
Then the Faithful wonder why people are upset. Ah, but they have thought it out and have an answer to the dilemma.
PUSH MORE BUT HARDER!

KA8DKT

08-12-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,05:08)]Hello.

I see nothing wrong with what this church did.
The article does point out that the church was willing to provide another venue for the funeral, and pay for it.
At issue was the fact that the family wanted pictures that would deal with homosexual actions, inplied or otherwise.
Skip the pictures and everything would have been fine.
I feel the same way, our Mosque would have the same limits.
Yes, well Islam as a religion is even more backwards than Christianity.

Jesus taught tolerance and love. #

Christians practice discrimination and hate.

I hugged and kissed my father. #I wonder if that church would have had a problem with pictures of that. #My understanding is that the pictures depicted Mr. Sinclair hugging and kissing someone he loved. #

This is nothing less than I have come to expect from "Christians".

-gary

KA8DKT

08-12-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 12 2007,11:38)]From the article, it would seem that the service was going to be used for a political forum more than a church service. Can't blame the church from backing away.
I didn't see that in the article. #Apparently what they wanted was to post pictures of him and the person he loved expressing thier affection for each other. #If it had been a man and a woman in the pictures, they would never have had a problem. #It was the church that made an issue of it...being "Christians" and all, they could not make room for the way he was.

The Bible, a book written between 1500 and 4000 years ago, clearly shows that people at that time did not understand a lot about sexuality. #Today we know differently. #Today we know that homosexuals are not as such by choice, but by happenstance. #So, do Christians adjust to this new information? #Of course not. #They are, by and large, stuck in the Middle Ages just like the Islamics. #They all get their entire knowledge of how things should be from books written at a minimum 1,300 years ago.

This is the twenty first century, folks. #Time to get with it.

-gary

N3ATS

08-12-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 12 2007,13:19)]Is the church consistent?

Do they hold funeral services for those who had families out of wedlock?

I see many churches refuse services to homosexuals, but they have no issue when it is a heterosexual relationship that is taking place out of wedlock.

They are the same thing in God's eyes. Both are relationships that run contrary to Biblical faith. Adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, stealing, lies, being disobedient to parents, killing, and such are all equal in the eyes of God. There is no sin that ranks higher than the other. Man makes one sinful deed worse than another.

It is this us versus them mentality in the last 25 years that has turned many away from the church. And it is the same mentality that has allowed the divorce rate among Christians to equal that of non-Christians.

Jesus said that we should not point out the speck in our brothers eye when we have a log in our own.
I was raised in a Catholic family. Some years ago my grandmother's funeral mass was held in a Catholic church. The Monsignor refused me a Communion wafer because I was living "in sin" with the woman who is now my wife.

I didn't like it. I am no longer a Catholic. Simple as that. My point is, if you don't agree with the practices of your church, find another one.

K9STH

08-12-2007, 08:24 PM

Since this happened in my neighborhood (Dallas / Fort Worth) I will comment.

First of all I do not condemn nor condone the actions of the church. The church knew about his sexual orientation and agreed to hold the service. However, the church is also fundamentalist and did not want his sexual orientation from being promoted which is in opposition to their beliefs.

The church did offer to pay for another location.

As was pointed out in the article (which I read in my edition of the Dallas Morning News a couple of days ago) the situation was compared with a murderer or thief having their funeral at the church. The church would hold the funeral as a recognition of that person's family unless the family insisted on having photographs of the person robbing someone or murdering someone. The same thing would have happened had they gone on as planned by the affected family. The photographs that were to be on display showed the deceased in homosexual relationships and the speakers were also to emphasize those relationships. Since such actions are not approved by the church it was decided not to allow the funeral to be held at that location.

A religious affiliation has its own standards and can legally adhere to those standards.

As I said before, I do not either condemn nor condone their actions. It is for them to decide based on their beliefs.

Glen, K9STH

k6bbc

08-12-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Aug. 12 2007,13:24)]Since this happened in my neighborhood (Dallas / Fort Worth) I will comment.

First of all I do not condemn nor condone the actions of the church. The church knew about his sexual orientation and agreed to hold the service. However, the church is also fundamentalist and did not want his sexual orientation from being promoted which is in opposition to their beliefs.

The church did offer to pay for another location.

As was pointed out in the article (which I read in my edition of the Dallas Morning News a couple of days ago) the situation was compared with a murderer or thief having their funeral at the church. The church would hold the funeral as a recognition of that person's family unless the family insisted on having photographs of the person robbing someone or murdering someone. The same thing would have happened had they gone on as planned by the affected family. The photographs that were to be on display showed the deceased in homosexual relationships and the speakers were also to emphasize those relationships. Since such actions are not approved by the church it was decided not to allow the funeral to be held at that location.

A religious affiliation has its own standards and can legally adhere to those standards.

As I said before, I do not either condemn nor condone their actions. It is for them to decide based on their beliefs.

Glen, K9STH
Absolutely correct. Their behavior may be repugnant, but they are a private organization and I for one am an extreme supporter of private rights.

This is also the reason I would remove tax exemption from all religious organizations. Then the government would have no stake in their action – be it condemn or condone

bbc

K3XR

08-12-2007, 09:54 PM

Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their #services, typical.

al2n

08-12-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their services, typical.
In Australia and Sweden, some pastors have been charged with hate crimes for teaching the Bible.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/042905faithspeech.aspx

N1LAF

08-12-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 12 2007,15:02)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their services, typical.
In Australia and Sweden, some pastors have been charged with hate crimes for teaching the Bible.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/042905faithspeech.aspx
Don't forget our friend Canada:

The Bible as 'hate literature'? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29328)

Canada: Adventists Wary as 'Hate Speech' is Defined to Include Bible, Sermons (http://news.adventist.org/data/2004/04/1083692992/index.html.en)

Hate crime earns record jail time (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957196/posts)

Canadian pastor faces legal reprecussions because of hate crimes laws (http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/canadian_pastor_faces_legal_re.php)

k6bbc

08-12-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their services, typical.
Well I’m a life-long conservative and I absolutely don’t want the church to have ANYTHING to do with the state. As far as I am concerned, all churchs are part of a con game – selling salvation with a dose of hocus pocus.

bbc

w2amr

08-13-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 12 2007,15:44)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their #services, typical.
Well I’m a life-long conservative and I absolutely don’t want the church to have ANYTHING to do with the state. #As far as I am concerned, all churchs are part of a con game – selling salvation with a dose of hocus pocus.

bbc
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
-- George Carlin

n2ize

08-13-2007, 12:52 AM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their services, typical.
For once I agree with you. LIBS and gay people should wash their hands of the hypocritical churches once and for all. They should also be required to pay taxes like everyone else. Enough of this tax exempt BS. Lets really LEVEL the ball field once and for all.

AB8RU

08-13-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 12 2007,15:10)]I'm surprised they didn't call for an exorcism.
All policies of certain demonations will refuse under their beliefs, then there are churches that will do a funeral service regardless of gender.

now if he was an Atheist then that person would want a Atheist Gay Church to handle their wishes.

Each Organization has different beliefs.

BTW he could even choose cremation.

My Mom did and so did my brother in law and both churches accept that , and both passed away.

in Grand Rapids, MI there is the Fountain Street Church and the Metropolitan Church I think that are open to Gay People.

KA8DKT

08-13-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,17:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their #services, typical.
'XR-

You must have been reading different posts than I was. #Nowhere did I see that anyone wanted to have the government dictate how the church acts. #Of course, the church does not pay any taxes, at the whim of the government, even though they operate just like a business.

On the other hand, the church is behaving in a manner that they would have others not behave. #They are discriminating against some people. #The example above about people committing a robbery is not the same. #A robbery is an offense against innocent people and an offense against society. #Two people who care for and love each other are not doing either. #I submit that the church is lacking in the understanding, charity, and tolerance that it preaches.

And getting a tax break to do it, to boot.

One more time. #Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, even if the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago did not understand that. #If you believe otherwise, your belief is not justified by the facts. #But then, when were "believers" ever affected by facts?

-gary

ka5piu

08-13-2007, 04:39 AM

Hello.

If homsexuality is not a lifestyle choice, than what is?
I am not saying that 2 of the same gender can not do their thing, what I am saying is this.
Do we need to know about your sexual preference at a Church function?
Remember, the Church did not say that they would not do the service due to his being gay.
They said no after it was clear that this was going to be a topic.
And, why is it that the homo's say that people can change, become homo?
My opinion is that some things need to be kept in the closet, or bedroom, anywhere but out in the open.

KG4CGC

08-13-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,16:39)]Hello.

And, why is it that the homo's say that people can change, become homo?
That's more like a Christian belief not a "homo" belief.
There are places they send people to that is supposed to change their orientation (back) to being heterosexual.
I'm not sure if they're calling deprogramming but it's the same principle.

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:11 AM

I’ve said this before – I’ve known and worked with many gay people (homo is considered a pejorative and rude). Not one of them ever said they chose that lifestyle. They all say they knew who they were from a very young age.

I remember in second grade looking across the classroom and suddenly noticing a classmate, Adele, and having a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach. (I wish I has ignored it – I’d have had a lot more money in the bank and definitely fewer lawyers in my life – but I digress). I was far too young to make a choice about my sexuality, I just was.

If one cannot understand how nature has affected their own being, then they are leading a rather unexamined life.

bbc

n6hcm

08-13-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 12 2007,13:30)]This is also the reason I would remove tax exemption from all religious organizations. Then the government would have no stake in their action – be it condemn or condone
i agree. as it is now, there's a lot of fence-sitting on this topic--it's hard for the churches to give up the money, but it's easy for them to claim rights as private organizations.

n6hcm

08-13-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,14:54)]Notice how the LIBS want separation of church and state except when it comes time for them to dictate to a church how to conduct their services, typical.
the article i linked to didn't call for any government interference. my intent was to call to light yet another instance where christian churches fail to demonstrate christian values.

christ ministered to everyone (remember mary magdalene?!?) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene) ... i would expect a self-identified christian church to do the same.

n6hcm

08-13-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,21:39)]And, why is it that the homo's say that people can change, become homo?
i'm not aware of any who say this. i know i didn't "become" gay, and no individual did anything to make me gay. it's simply what is.

w2amr

08-13-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ Aug. 13 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,21:39)]And, why is it that the homo's say that people can change, become homo?
i'm not aware of any who say this. #i know i didn't "become" gay, and no individual did anything to make me gay. #it's simply what is.
Don't worry Henry, just send Pat Robertson a few bucks and he will make you NORMAL. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ac4ut

08-13-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 13 2007,02:36)]Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ Aug. 13 2007,00:28)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Aug. 12 2007,21:39)]And, why is it that the homo's say that people can change, become homo?
i'm not aware of any who say this. #i know i didn't "become" gay, and no individual did anything to make me gay. #it's simply what is.
Don't worry Henry, just send Pat Robertson a few bucks and he will make you NORMAL. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What is normal?

KP3FT

08-13-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 12 2007,21:30)]On the other hand, the church is behaving in a manner that they would have others not behave. They are discriminating against some people. The example above about people committing a robbery is not the same. A robbery is an offense against innocent people and an offense against society. Two people who care for and love each other are not doing either. I submit that the church is lacking in the understanding, charity, and tolerance that it preaches.

One more time. Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, even if the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago did not understand that. If you believe otherwise, your belief is not justified by the facts. But then, when were "believers" ever affected by facts?

-gary
That church is behaving like a real church, not an apostate modern-day "church". Anyone critical of their policies would do well to study the actual teachings and practices of Jesus and the Apostles, instead of pulling the same old "tolerance" passages out of context. If Jesus Christ and the Apostles were here today and preached the same message they did before, they would be labeled "intolerant" and "judgmental". It all comes down to the concept of "sin". One favorite of the psuedo-Christians and critics, is the adulteress woman being forgiven by Jesus. They always, always, leave out his last statement to her: "Go and sin no more...". Jesus didn't preach tolerance or acceptance, he preached forgiveness and repentance. He did not tolerate or accept continued willful sin, and he also didn't tolerate or accept the hypocritical "holier-than-thou" religious Pharisees either. The Pharisees were judgmental to the point of believing themselves superior to sinners and as a result had no contact or compassion for them. Jesus' entire purpose was for our deliverance "from" sin. He had compassion on prostitutes, adulterers, robbers, etc. but invariably told them to stop continuing in those things. He Himself had a prostitute in his ancestory (Rahab, who was also non-Jewish), which you see when you read the genealogy passages in the Bible. Incidentally, Rahab had stopped her lifestyle of prostitution, and is also listed in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews chapter 11 along with other great people of faith like Abraham, Enoch, etc. Her faith in God led her to help the Israelites, and is thus considered in a place of honor.
The apostle Paul actually told the Corinthian church to kick one of their members out, because this guy was having an affair with another woman. He said to kick him out and let the devil beat up on him in the world, and he might be back later as a result. He called the Galatian church "foolish" for being so easily fooled by false teachers. That wouldn't fly in some of today's so-called churches.
As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc. Let's not stop there... some people have the natural propensity to rob banks, abuse drugs, lie, cheat, etc. I think you get the point. All those things, in a true Biblical context, are "sin" and seperate us from God. It's important to note that the Bible makes it clear that having feelings for certain things is not sin, but that acting on those feelings is sin. Jesus came to deliver us from sin, not to accept it. Pride causes us to continue living in sin, humbleness and a true desire for Jesus causes us to repent of sin. Regarding homosexuality in particular, the New Testament is absolutely, beyond any doubt, crystal-clear that it is a sin and anyone practicing it will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. I just read where the Lutheran church has voted to accept gay ministers who continue their lifestyle; that's positively unacceptable and should not be allowed, no more than if the ministers were heterosexual and having an affair with another person.
73 Jeff KP3FT

N9XR

08-13-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,02:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 12 2007,21:30)]On the other hand, the church is behaving in a manner that they would have others not behave. They are discriminating against some people. The example above about people committing a robbery is not the same. A robbery is an offense against innocent people and an offense against society. Two people who care for and love each other are not doing either. I submit that the church is lacking in the understanding, charity, and tolerance that it preaches.

One more time. Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, even if the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago did not understand that. If you believe otherwise, your belief is not justified by the facts. But then, when were "believers" ever affected by facts?

-gary
That church is behaving like a real church, not an apostate modern-day "church". Anyone critical of their policies would do well to study the actual teachings and practices of Jesus and the Apostles, instead of pulling the same old "tolerance" passages out of context. If Jesus Christ and the Apostles were here today and preached the same message they did before, they would be labeled "intolerant" and "judgmental". It all comes down to the concept of "sin". One favorite of the psuedo-Christians and critics, is the adulteress woman being forgiven by Jesus. They always, always, leave out his last statement to her: "Go and sin no more...". Jesus didn't preach tolerance or acceptance, he preached forgiveness and repentance. He did not tolerate or accept continued willful sin, and he also didn't tolerate or accept the hypocritical "holier-than-thou" religious Pharisees either. The Pharisees were judgmental to the point of believing themselves superior to sinners and as a result had no contact or compassion for them. Jesus' entire purpose was for our deliverance "from" sin. He had compassion on prostitutes, adulterers, robbers, etc. but invariably told them to stop continuing in those things. He Himself had a prostitute in his ancestory (Rahab, who was also non-Jewish), which you see when you read the genealogy passages in the Bible. Incidentally, Rahab had stopped her lifestyle of prostitution, and is also listed in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews chapter 11 along with other great people of faith like Abraham, Enoch, etc. Her faith in God led her to help the Israelites, and is thus considered in a place of honor.
The apostle Paul actually told the Corinthian church to kick one of their members out, because this guy was having an affair with another woman. He said to kick him out and let the devil beat up on him in the world, and he might be back later as a result. He called the Galatian church "foolish" for being so easily fooled by false teachers. That wouldn't fly in some of today's so-called churches.
As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc. Let's not stop there... some people have the natural propensity to rob banks, abuse drugs, lie, cheat, etc. I think you get the point. All those things, in a true Biblical context, are "sin" and seperate us from God. It's important to note that the Bible makes it clear that having feelings for certain things is not sin, but that acting on those feelings is sin. Jesus came to deliver us from sin, not to accept it. Pride causes us to continue living in sin, humbleness and a true desire for Jesus causes us to repent of sin. Regarding homosexuality in particular, the New Testament is absolutely, beyond any doubt, crystal-clear that it is a sin and anyone practicing it will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. I just read where the Lutheran church has voted to accept gay ministers who continue their lifestyle; that's positively unacceptable and should not be allowed, no more than if the ministers were heterosexual and having an affair with another person.
73 Jeff KP3FT
What if Mr. Sinclair had homosexual feelings and never acted on them?

When Jesus said "Go and sin no more", does that request go past death? Are you saying that Jesus hates sinners?

Mr Sinclair is no longer amongst the living. Maybe you wish to be the almighty judge of the dead, but I don't want that job. I am afraid of what others vying for that position would want to do to me.

KI4VUP

08-13-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]I just read where the Lutheran church has voted to accept gay ministers who continue their lifestyle; that's positively unacceptable and should not be allowed, no more than if the ministers were heterosexual and having an affair with another person.
73 Jeff KP3FT
Thanks for the post Jeff, it was good and echoed more than I was going to say. I was disappointed that the ELCA are allowing practicing homosexuals to be pastors; in the past they allowed celibate homosexuals to minister which was wrong in the first place.

And its even worse when the headlines read 'Lutheran churches allow ...' and it is only one Lutheran church, out of about 20 or so Lutheran churches. None of the others allow this. Its sad though, how the Bible is being eroded nowadays.

Phil KI4VUP

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. How dare you sir. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc

N9XR

08-13-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4VUP @ Aug. 13 2007,02:39)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]I just read where the Lutheran church has voted to accept gay ministers who continue their lifestyle; that's positively unacceptable and should not be allowed, no more than if the ministers were heterosexual and having an affair with another person.
73 Jeff KP3FT
Thanks for the post Jeff, it was good and echoed more than I was going to say. I was disappointed that the ELCA are allowing practicing homosexuals to be pastors; in the past they allowed celibate homosexuals to minister which was wrong in the first place.

And its even worse when the headlines read 'Lutheran churches allow ...' and it is only one Lutheran church, out of about 20 or so Lutheran churches. None of the others allow this. Its sad though, how the Bible is being eroded nowadays.

Phil KI4VUP
Yeah. And when our wife can not conceive, we should do as the great Abraham, and find another chicky to wrestle with because God showed favor with Abraham.

KC2HJN

08-13-2007, 04:16 PM

This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

When me and my wife were planning our wedding we went to our local church to inquire about their services. I had no desire to get married in church but my wife wanted to so I went along with her wishes. I had never received confirmation and the church wouldn't marry us unless I went through it. Then they told us there would be a 'required 500 dollar donation'. I kept quiet and when we left I told me wife I was not getting married there. This was not a place of worship but a business. I didn't cry about it or call the news to complain. Just went somewhere else.

We wound up getting married in an all faiths church. No requirements, they will just perform your services. They asked for a donation but didn't require it. It wound up being a nice service that everyone liked and they received their donation.

It seems the people in the article were trying to make a political statement, otherwise how did the news find out about the incident? Why did they insist on promoting his sexuality in church rather that just honor him as a loved one who died?

N9XR

08-13-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:16)]This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

When me and my wife were planning our wedding we went to our local church to inquire about their services. I had no desire to get married in church but my wife wanted to so I went along with her wishes. I had never received confirmation and the church wouldn't marry us unless I went through it. Then they told us there would be a 'required 500 dollar donation'. I kept quiet and when we left I told me wife I was not getting married there. This was not a place of worship but a business. I didn't cry about it or call the news to complain. Just went somewhere else.

We wound up getting married in an all faiths church. No requirements, they will just perform your services. They asked for a donation but didn't require it. It wound up being a nice service that everyone liked and they received their donation.

It seems the people in the article were trying to make a political statement, otherwise how did the news find out about the incident? Why did they insist on promoting his sexuality in church rather that just honor him as a loved one who died?
Why bring up the church asking for $500?

It is, by your definition, a "non-issue" being made into one.

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 04:27 PM

What I don't understand is that obviously this church considers homosexuality to be a sin. That apparently was not hidden. They would not want a sin "celebrated" in their church, that is also apparent.

Why would the relatives of a non-church going man, who was homosexual, want to have his funeral in a church that was against that sort of behavior?

And why would these relatives want to "flaunt" this lifestyle in a place that is known to preach against it?

What did they expect the church to do? Bend to their wishes for a person who was not even a member of their congregation, or any congregation for that matter?

Who do these people think they are?

If you want the free funeral and meal for 100 people, then you will probably have to play by their rules. They may not want you smoking in the building, either. Or urinating on the floor, or participating nude.

The fact that YOU want these things, or any other thing, doesn't mean that the church (or any other entity) has to accept or condone your ideas or actions.

If they find it an affront to the beliefs of that entity, then they have the right and obligation to see that the meeting is in conformity with their belief systems.

If the funeral were at a synagogue, and being given for a non-Jew, we wouldn't expect the Rabbi there to condone or allow a ham dinner on the premises after the funeral.

Joe

n2ize

08-13-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,09:16)]This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

When me and my wife were planning our wedding we went to our local church to inquire about their services. I had no desire to get married in church but my wife wanted to so I went along with her wishes. I had never received confirmation and the church wouldn't marry us unless I went through it. Then they told us there would be a 'required 500 dollar donation'. I kept quiet and when we left I told me wife I was not getting married there. This was not a place of worship but a business. I didn't cry about it or call the news to complain. Just went somewhere else.

We wound up getting married in an all faiths church. No requirements, they will just perform your services. They asked for a donation but didn't require it. It wound up being a nice service that everyone liked and they received their donation.

It seems the people in the article were trying to make a political statement, otherwise how did the news find out about the incident? Why did they insist on promoting his sexuality in church rather that just honor him as a loved one who died?
Quote[/b] ]
This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

Who was asking the church to promote any lifestyle. The were going to give a funeral and refused when they founf out that the man was gay. Frankly the church choses it interact with the public so, when they do things such as this they should expect them to be publically discussed.

KC2HJN

08-13-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:21)]Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:16)]This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

When me and my wife were planning our wedding we went to our local church to inquire about their services. I had no desire to get married in church but my wife wanted to so I went along with her wishes. I had never received confirmation and the church wouldn't marry us unless I went through it. Then they told us there would be a 'required 500 dollar donation'. I kept quiet and when we left I told me wife I was not getting married there. This was not a place of worship but a business. I didn't cry about it or call the news to complain. Just went somewhere else.

We wound up getting married in an all faiths church. No requirements, they will just perform your services. They asked for a donation but didn't require it. It wound up being a nice service that everyone liked and they received their donation.

It seems the people in the article were trying to make a political statement, otherwise how did the news find out about the incident? Why did they insist on promoting his sexuality in church rather that just honor him as a loved one who died?
Why bring up the church asking for $500?

It is, by your definition, a "non-issue" being made into one.
The point was that I disagreed with what they wanted so I went somewhere else, and was part of the story. It is you now trying to make an issue out of nothing...

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 13 2007,09:28)]Who was asking the church to promote any lifestyle. The were going to give a funeral and refused when they founf out that the man was gay. Frankly the church choses it interact with the public so, when they do things such as this they should expect them to be publically discussed.
The issue was not with the man being gay, the issue was that this "gayness" was going to be flaunted.

If the people had chosen not to make an issue of the man's sexual preferences, then the funeral would have proceded.

People have no right to ask that a church bend it's belief system or mode of operation because it doesn't mesh with what they want.

Go to another church, or a funeral parlor. It's really that simple. Seems like a slap in the face to the dead man to have his last meeting in a place he didn't attend, and that preached things he didn't believe.

Why would the family want to dishonor this man to this extent?

Some sort of agenda going on.

Joe

KC2HJN

08-13-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 13 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,09:16)]This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

When me and my wife were planning our wedding we went to our local church to inquire about their services. I had no desire to get married in church but my wife wanted to so I went along with her wishes. I had never received confirmation and the church wouldn't marry us unless I went through it. Then they told us there would be a 'required 500 dollar donation'. I kept quiet and when we left I told me wife I was not getting married there. This was not a place of worship but a business. I didn't cry about it or call the news to complain. Just went somewhere else.

We wound up getting married in an all faiths church. No requirements, they will just perform your services. They asked for a donation but didn't require it. It wound up being a nice service that everyone liked and they received their donation.

It seems the people in the article were trying to make a political statement, otherwise how did the news find out about the incident? Why did they insist on promoting his sexuality in church rather that just honor him as a loved one who died?
Quote[/b] ]
This is a non issue being made into one. The church considers homosexuality a bad thing so it is their choice to deny this request. I'm sick of this PC crap in our society. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life but you can't expect to live against the churches beliefs and then want them to promote your lifestyle during a religious ceremony.

Who was asking the church to promote any lifestyle. The were going to give a funeral and refused when they founf out that the man was gay. Frankly the church choses it interact with the public so, when they do things such as this they should expect them to be publically discussed.
from the article .....

Quote[/b] ] But it's not clear where the two sides could have found common ground on the central issue. High Point Church opposes homosexuality, and there was no way the church could host a service that appeared to endorse it, Mr. Simons said.

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

The issue was not so much that Mr. Sinclair was, from the church's perspective, an unrepentant sinner, he said. It's that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 04:44 PM

A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

W0UZR

08-13-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,10:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. #The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. #And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. #How dare you sir. # You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
Nooo that's not what he's saying BBC.

He is saying that people claim to be "Born that way" referring to gay people. And people can also be born that way that are heterosexuals, pedophiles, bestiality, people that have sex with animals, etc, etc....
They can say that they were, 'Born that way' or it could be possible that they are born that way. No comparison to anything except that other unatural sex urges people could be or ARE born that way.

KC2HJN

08-13-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

I thought homosexuality was a sexuality issue. Some want to make it a political issue. Whether for or against.

The church didn't reject the sinner. They, in their eyes, rejected the endorsement of the sin.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 04:47 PM

http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/files/whataretheysaying-hands.jpg

Pictures of gayness. Should they be tolerated, or should the gay couples be shunned?

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,09:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.
Everything is or could be a political topic. Churches certainly DO deal with things that are in the political arena, and so they should.

Abortion, homosexuality, drugs, birth control, sex education, pornography, marriage, adultery, alcoholism, homeless issues, anti-war issues, ecology issues, etc.

They are all dealt with by churches in different ways.

Joe

KA8DKT

08-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. #The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. #And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. #How dare you sir. # You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. #Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. #That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. #We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. #I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. #There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. #It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. #What? #You can't do it? #Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...

N9XR

08-13-2007, 04:52 PM

Should we all accept these wonderful acts of love, or reject them as "Gayness photos". When we know there are people out there continuing to sin in their own "lifestyle", do we reject the act, or the people when they continue to flaunt their actions?

http://www.solutionassoc.com/truthfire/pics/bush_gannonguckert.jpg

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:05 PM

And while we are on the subject -- here is what American blood is spilled for. Feel better now?
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r75/georgepeter/iran-iraq-leaders-hold-hands3.jpg

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,04:05)]And while we are on the subject -- here is what American blood is spilled for. Feel better now?
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r75/georgepeter/iran-iraq-leaders-hold-hands3.jpg
I feel better.

Bush done well.

W0UZR

08-13-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:49)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. #The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. #And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. #How dare you sir. # You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. #Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. #That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. #We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. #I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. #There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. #It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. #What? #You can't do it? #Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...
Can't prove spiritual facts with worldly things, books, or worldly people, It can't be done.

# # # # #BUT, #you are right. #People ARE #born gay, born pedophile, born with urges to having sex with animals. #We inherited these and other sins from our grand ma and grand pa #Adam and Eve when they first sinned in the Garden Of Eden

~~~EDIT~~~

OOps, forgot about thisQuote[/b] ]If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality,

No, people cannot just 'Get rid of the urges' or 'Change their sexuality'

Once a person is Gay, they are Gay for Life, Pedophile, they are Pedophile for life, etc. But a person CAN choose to not act on those urges, and as long as that happens that's called what the Bible says is 'Repenting' Those people are then right in the Eyes Of God and the chance that their children will be born gay, pedophile, or heterosexual, or whatever will be a Lot less.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:47)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

I thought homosexuality was a sexuality issue. Some want to make it a political issue. Whether for or against.

The church didn't reject the sinner. They, in their eyes, rejected the endorsement of the sin.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2133621/2146927/060807_POL_5BushKiss.jpg

Where did the debate go on the church's endorsement of sin? When has a church stood up and denounced these hideous acts of wanton lust and sin?

Hypocrites.

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:49)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. How dare you sir. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. What? You can't do it? Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...
Can't prove spiritual facts with worldly things, books, or worldly people, It can't be done.

BUT, you are right. People ARE born gay, born pedophile, born with urges to having sex with animals. We inherited these and other sins from our grand ma and grand pa Adam and Eve when they first sinned in the Garden Of Eden
Until we get past these pathetic superstitions, we will continue to remain one-half step ahead of cattle.

But I still love you UZR – GIVE US A KISS!

bbc

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:31 PM

Get your hands off UZR, Tony.

He's mine.

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:47)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

I thought homosexuality was a sexuality issue. Some want to make it a political issue. Whether for or against.

The church didn't reject the sinner. They, in their eyes, rejected the endorsement of the sin.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2133621/2146927/060807_POL_5BushKiss.jpg

Where did the debate go on the church's endorsement of sin? When has a church stood up and denounced these hideous acts of wanton lust and sin?

Hypocrites.
WOW. Inter-religious smooching. Even though Joe is going straight to Hell, George is willing to plant a big wet one on him. He is a true Christian.

bbc

W0UZR

08-13-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:49)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. #The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. #And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. #How dare you sir. # You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. #Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. #That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. #We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. #I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. #There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. #It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. #What? #You can't do it? #Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...
Can't prove spiritual facts with worldly things, books, or worldly people, It can't be done.

# # # # #BUT, #you are right. #People ARE #born gay, born pedophile, born with urges to having sex with animals. #We inherited these and other sins from our grand ma and grand pa #Adam and Eve when they first sinned in the Garden Of Eden
Until we get past these pathetic superstitions, we will continue to remain one-half step ahead of cattle.

But I still love you UZR – GIVE US A KISS!

bbc
I can't wait to be back in your loving arms again BBC !!

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,04:34)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:47)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

I thought homosexuality was a sexuality issue. Some want to make it a political issue. Whether for or against.

The church didn't reject the sinner. They, in their eyes, rejected the endorsement of the sin.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2133621/2146927/060807_POL_5BushKiss.jpg

Where did the debate go on the church's endorsement of sin? When has a church stood up and denounced these hideous acts of wanton lust and sin?

Hypocrites.
WOW. Inter-religious smooching. Even though Joe is going straight to Hell, George is willing to plant a big wet one on him. He is a true Christian.

bbc
So what do you think there, Tony.

Would that Arlington church reject George W.'s family's request if, heaven forbid, the worst happened tomorrow, and they wanted a picture at the ceremony showing the closeness of Dubya to Lieberman? Would the church just say NO to homo tendencies and turn him away to get serviced somewhere else?

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,04:37)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:49)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. How dare you sir. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. What? You can't do it? Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...
Can't prove spiritual facts with worldly things, books, or worldly people, It can't be done.

BUT, you are right. People ARE born gay, born pedophile, born with urges to having sex with animals. We inherited these and other sins from our grand ma and grand pa Adam and Eve when they first sinned in the Garden Of Eden
Until we get past these pathetic superstitions, we will continue to remain one-half step ahead of cattle.

But I still love you UZR – GIVE US A KISS!

bbc
I can't wait to be back in your loving arms again BBC !!
I am crying a billion tears. Need more bottled water. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:39)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,04:34)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (KC2HJN @ Aug. 13 2007,03:47)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:44)]A. Churches are not supposed to make political statements lest they lose their tax exempt status. Homosexuality is most certainly a political topic.

B. Read between the lines. The church here is rejecting the sinner.

I thought homosexuality was a sexuality issue. Some want to make it a political issue. Whether for or against.

The church didn't reject the sinner. They, in their eyes, rejected the endorsement of the sin.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2133621/2146927/060807_POL_5BushKiss.jpg

Where did the debate go on the church's endorsement of sin? When has a church stood up and denounced these hideous acts of wanton lust and sin?

Hypocrites.
WOW. Inter-religious smooching. Even though Joe is going straight to Hell, George is willing to plant a big wet one on him. He is a true Christian.

bbc
So what do you think there, Tony.

Would that Arlington church reject George W.'s family's request if, heaven forbid, the worst happened tomorrow, and they wanted a picture at the ceremony showing the closeness of Dubya to Lieberman? Would the church just say NO to homo tendencies and turn him away to get serviced somewhere else?
Joking aside, I think there is a serious strain of homosexuality running through that Whitehouse. Not to cast aspersions, but I think closet-queen number one just resigned today.

bbc

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:40)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,04:37)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:18)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:49)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:01)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,08:18)]As for being "born that way" being an excuse for the gay lifestyle, that's a lame rationalization. The same could be said for heterosexuals cheating on their spouses (adultery), for pedophiles preferring children, for bestiality (preferring sex with animals), for necrophiles (sex with cadavers), etc.
If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. How dare you sir. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.

bbc
You beat me to it. Thank you.

Again, being gay is NOT, read that as: NOT a choice. That is a fact, folks, and just because you are "Christian" and believe all that malarky in that old book, does not change that fact. We have at least one gay person on the 'Zed who will inform you of the facts, if you are willing to listen to him and adapt your belief.

Otherwise you can continue to "believe" whatever you want but that just makes you, well, stupid. I have tried to avoid that word in the discussions of this subject, but I am losing patience with the stupidity that has been shown here.

And, once again, please don't come up with some study done by some fundamentalist Christian group that "proves" homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals can be reprogrammed. There is an overwhelming amount of real research on this subject, done by people who are far, far more knowledgable about the human psyche and about human sexuality than you are, and whose agenda was to find out the facts (not reinforce some beliefs).

And don't quote from that dumb old book, either. It was written by superstitious people who do not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today about many things, including this.

If you still believe one's sexuality can be changed, then I challenge you to convert to homosexuality, to prove your allegation. What? You can't do it? Hmmmm...

-gary

Ignorance is a choice...stupidity is not...
Can't prove spiritual facts with worldly things, books, or worldly people, It can't be done.

BUT, you are right. People ARE born gay, born pedophile, born with urges to having sex with animals. We inherited these and other sins from our grand ma and grand pa Adam and Eve when they first sinned in the Garden Of Eden
Until we get past these pathetic superstitions, we will continue to remain one-half step ahead of cattle.

But I still love you UZR – GIVE US A KISS!

bbc
I can't wait to be back in your loving arms again BBC !!
I am crying a billion tears. Need more bottled water. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
UZR and I have a long term understanding. We meet once a year on Brokeback Mountain -- when that "thing" comes over us.

bbc

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:39)]Would that Arlington church reject George W.'s family's request if, heaven forbid, the worst happened tomorrow, and they wanted a picture at the ceremony showing the closeness of Dubya to Lieberman? Would the church just say NO to homo tendencies and turn him away to get serviced somewhere else?
Certainly you jest.

And certainly you should be able to see the difference, and understand the difference.

All kisses or embraces are not sexual in nature.

If GWB were to have a funeral here, they would probably not show this picture, or refer to Joe as his "partner" or "long time companion".

That's all these people had to do if they really wanted the funeral at this church. Comply with some rules. Thats it, very simple.

If they wanted to flaunt or celebrate his queerness, they can go elsewhere.

I still don't understand why these people would want to have their relative's funeral at a place that preached against his lifestyle. That is the ultimate insult to the man's memory.

I guess it's all about the money. Can't beat free.

Joe

KP3FT

08-13-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 13 2007,09:49)]If you believe there is a comparison between who one loves or is attracted to or gets off with – with adultery, pedophiles, bestiality and necrophilia – you are an ignorant bigot. And in case you did not recognize it, that IS name-calling. How dare you sir. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure that is not within your capacity.
You completely missed the point. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, and bestiality are all simply forms of sexual preference. The burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate how pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are not born traits, and why... There's no name-calling there... Additionally, isn't it intolerant of YOU to have a problem with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality since they can't help being that way? It seems it may be you who is bigoted.
My entire point is that born traits are not free license for our actions. I am coming from a Biblical context, because that is the topic. Acting on feelings is the "sin", the feelings themselves are not. If a Christian has homosexual feelings, then he is obligated NOT to act on them, in exactly the same way a heterosexual Christian can NOT act on feelings of attraction to someone other than their spouse.
You have a free will to do whatever you please, even God gave us that in the Garden of Eden...he did not force us like robots to perform in any way. If you do not agree with the Bible, that is your choice, but arguing a Biblical point that uses anti-Biblical rationale is completely irrelevant.
I am curious of what evidence you have to you think the Bible is stupid and outdated though...
I never inferred anything about Christian articles showing how sexual preference can be changed, so that is irrelevant as well. What CAN be changed is acting on those preferences. I'm using your own logic to make point.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Aug. 13 2007,04:50)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,10:39)]Would that Arlington church reject George W.'s family's request if, heaven forbid, the worst happened tomorrow, and they wanted a picture at the ceremony showing the closeness of Dubya to Lieberman? Would the church just say NO to homo tendencies and turn him away to get serviced somewhere else?
Certainly you jest.

And certainly you should be able to see the difference, and understand the difference.

All kisses or embraces are not sexual in nature.

If GWB were to have a funeral here, they would probably not show this picture, or refer to Joe as his "partner" or "long time companion".

That's all these people had to do if they really wanted the funeral at this church. Comply with some rules. Thats it, very simple.

If they wanted to flaunt or celebrate his queerness, they can go elsewhere.

I still don't understand why these people would want to have their relative's funeral at a place that preached against his lifestyle. That is the ultimate insult to the man's memory.

I guess it's all about the money. Can't beat free.

Joe
Thank you for proving my point.

al2n

08-13-2007, 06:06 PM

Question:

Some argue that homosexuality is a genetic thing and cannot be helped.

But some also say that there is a genetic disposition to being obese as well as a genetic disposition to various forms of addiction.

Why then are fat people and addicts shunned? Are they not merely a product of genetics?

And don't get me started on the bias against us left handed folks living in a right handed world.

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 06:10 PM

W3MIV

08-13-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 12 2007,15:35)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 12 2007,11:38)]From the article, it would seem that the service was going to be used for a political forum more than a church service. Can't blame the church from backing away.
I didn't see that in the article. #Apparently what they wanted was to post pictures of him and the person he loved expressing thier affection for each other.
That's because you chose not to see that in the article, preferring instead to my comment to make your own political statement against the church.

Quote[/b] ] If it had been a man and a woman in the pictures, they would never have had a problem.

You make here an unwarranted assumption, one that comes of a piece directly from your own political proclivities. In fact, knowing this to be a Baptist organization, it would more likely be that any display of ardent affection between men and women would as quickly have been rejected as inappropriate to their views of what is proper to display in a church.

Why did the family include the objectionable images?

The article states:

Quote[/b] ]...that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted [the gay] part of his life to be a significant part of the service.

That is clearly a political position, and not one that anyone would consider a part of religious service. If you accept the proviso that Jesus would not turn this man's soul away because of his aberrant behavior, what is the necessity of displaying the images beyond the making of an obvious statement that the church found offensive?

Indeed, more than a moment's thought will surely cause you to ask "why would the family ever expect this church to acquiesce in these images?" Given the clear and public pronouncements by members of the church group (here I presume that the Arlington Church is a member of the Southern Baptist Conference, but even if it is not the attitudes are shared widely enough not to be surprising to anyone with half a brain working), why would anyone ever seek to include such a program in such a church? I would argue that the smart money would be on the idea of making a political statement, and that it was the goal from the git-go.

So far as I can tell, the church was well within its rights to decline the hosting of the service.

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 06:18 PM

Albert gets it.

And no-one has yet explained why the family wanted to have the service here, other than the fact that the brother was a member, and it was going to be free.

Most people would assume that if someone is doing you a favor, there might be restrictions.

Joe

N9XR

08-13-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 13 2007,05:11)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 12 2007,15:35)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 12 2007,11:38)]From the article, it would seem that the service was going to be used for a political forum more than a church service. Can't blame the church from backing away.
I didn't see that in the article. Apparently what they wanted was to post pictures of him and the person he loved expressing thier affection for each other.
That's because you chose not to see that in the article, preferring instead to my comment to make your own political statement against the church.

Quote[/b] ] If it had been a man and a woman in the pictures, they would never have had a problem.

You make here an unwarranted assumption, one that comes of a piece directly from your own political proclivities. In fact, knowing this to be a Baptist organization, it would more likely be that any display of ardent affection between men and women would as quickly have been rejected as inappropriate to their views of what is proper to display in a church.

Why did the family include the objectionable images?

The article states:

Quote[/b] ]...that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted [the gay] part of his life to be a significant part of the service.

That is clearly a political position, and not one that anyone would consider a part of religious service. If you accept the proviso that Jesus would not turn this man's soul away because of his aberrant behavior, what is the necessity of displaying the images beyond the making of an obvious statement that the church found offensive?

Indeed, more than a moment's thought will surely cause you to ask "why would the family ever expect this church to acquiesce in these images?" Given the clear and public pronouncements by members of the church group (here I presume that the Arlington Church is a member of the Southern Baptist Conference, but even if it is not the attitudes are shared widely enough not to be surprising to anyone with half a brain working), why would anyone ever seek to include such a program in such a church? I would argue that the smart money would be on the idea of making a political statement, and that it was the goal from the git-go.

So far as I can tell, the church was well within its rights to decline the hosting of the service.
Poor poor blind Alberto.

Your quote from the church is the church's perspective and the article states that this is not reality.

Read the reality.

Quote[/b] ] Nobody from the church called her or Mr. Sinclair's partner, Paul Wagner, to discuss possible changes to the service, Ms. Bowers said.

"We could have reached a compromise," she said. "That was never attempted."

At least some theological questions could have been worked out, she said. For instance, the family was willing to allow the church to issue an "altar call" asking people to accept Jesus at the end of the service.

This is the reality.

Just like JEM said, our society expects homosexuals to have a spouse of the opposite sex and then do their little escapades of lust with whom they want. THEN, this whole thing of huggy huggy smoochy smoochy is no longer taboo.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 13 2007,05:06)]Question:

Some argue that homosexuality is a genetic thing and cannot be helped.

But some also say that there is a genetic disposition to being obese as well as a genetic disposition to various forms of addiction.

Why then are fat people and addicts shunned? Are they not merely a product of genetics?

And don't get me started on the bias against us left handed folks living in a right handed world.
Do you have articles where obese people or addicts are rejected when families request a funeral at their church?

KA8DKT

08-13-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote[/b] ]Additionally, isn't it intolerant of YOU to have a problem with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality since they can't help being that way? #It seems it may be you who is bigoted.
Ah, but most homosexuality is between consenting adults. #No "sin" there.

Pedophilia has innocent victims, and that certainly can be called a "sin". #Children are not of an age to give consent, so there is no real consent there.

Bestiality, having sex with an animal, also a little strange, but has no victim...assuming that if the animal objects it can express that objection by fighting back.

Necrophilia is stange, but in this case there is no victim, since one party in the act is already dead and cannot care one way or the other. #Some partners will try to simulate necrophilia and again, if between consenting adults, no victim and therefore no "sin".

To me, an amoral act or "sin" is one in which a party to the act is hurt or harmed in some way. #If all parties are consenting and no individuals are harmed in any way, and society is not harmed in any way then there is no sin. #Any other definition of "sin" is arbitrary and is often unfair to someone.

Just because you don't like people doing something does not make it a sin. #Rock and Roll music is not sinful, nor is Hip Hop or Rap. #Dancing is not sinful nor is sexual activity between consenting adults, no matter what that activity might be.

I think the churches really have a skewed idea of what "sin" is. #I think imposing their arbitrary definitions of "sin" on others is, well, sinful.

-gary

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 06:45 PM

Gary, most churches don't use your definition of sin. You seem to think that there must be a "victim" in order to have a sin. Religion doesn't look at it that way.

If you start a church, then you can use your definition of sin. But various churches have different things that are defined as sins, and they do not all agree.

But what is clear is that if a church thinks that something is celebrating or condoning a sin, they are not likely to want to be a party to it.

And that is their choice and right. It is your choice and right to go somewhere else that better fits your beliefs.

Joe

k6bbc

08-13-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:54)]Additionally, isn't it intolerant of YOU to have a problem with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality since they can't help being that way? It seems it may be you who is bigoted.
Holy crap you are off the mark.

Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia – THEY ARE ALL CRIMES against the laws of our Country – THE FRIGGING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I know you religious cooks want religious law to supercede constitutional law – BUT IT DOES NOT. Whether you like it or not, there is a WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATES (here come the nut job flames now). Homosexuality is not a crime. It may be against your religious code, but frankly who gives a damn about your stupid religious code – it does not apply.

The father of our constitutional democracy was arguably Thomas Jefferson – who was an agnostic at best.

bbc

N9XR

08-13-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Aug. 13 2007,05:45)]Gary, most churches don't use your definition of sin. You seem to think that there must be a "victim" in order to have a sin. Religion doesn't look at it that way.

If you start a church, then you can use your definition of sin. But various churches have different things that are defined as sins, and they do not all agree.

But what is clear is that if a church thinks that something is celebrating or condoning a sin, they are not likely to want to be a party to it.

And that is their choice and right. It is your choice and right to go somewhere else that better fits your beliefs.

Joe
Indeed. The Christian thing to do is to oblige the Church to a funeral, and then back out on the grieving family.

I think Jesus said it best, "Blessed be the little children and the beasts, but those with gayness be eternally darned."

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:23)]Just like JEM said, our society expects homosexuals to have a spouse of the opposite sex and then do their little escapades of lust with whom they want. THEN, this whole thing of huggy huggy smoochy smoochy is no longer taboo.
I never said any such thing, and don't believe that to be the case.

Society and church are two different things. Society, for the most part, accepts homosexuality. Many churches, however, do not.

Most churches recognize that homosexual tendencies are there in some people. They also teach that homosexual relations are a sin.

So, if you have HS desires, yet want to be in good standing with a church, you need to not act on those feelings. You do not need to get married, but you can't be having HS relations. That is where the sin enters in.

If you have desires for a woman that is not your wife, it would be a sin to act on those as well. You can have the thoughts, but they need to be restrained.

It would be a sin for me to have sexual relations with a woman that I was not married to. It would be a sin to have sex with another man, regardless of our marriage relationship. That is the philosophy of many churches, not just mine.

Joe

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:51)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Aug. 13 2007,05:45)]Gary, most churches don't use your definition of sin. You seem to think that there must be a "victim" in order to have a sin. Religion doesn't look at it that way.

If you start a church, then you can use your definition of sin. But various churches have different things that are defined as sins, and they do not all agree.

But what is clear is that if a church thinks that something is celebrating or condoning a sin, they are not likely to want to be a party to it.

And that is their choice and right. It is your choice and right to go somewhere else that better fits your beliefs.

Joe
Indeed. The Christian thing to do is to oblige the Church to a funeral, and then back out on the grieving family.

I think Jesus said it best, "Blessed be the little children and the beasts, but those with gayness be eternally darned."
Why would the family expect "carte blanch"?

If they told the church that they wanted all that came to the service to be nude, the church might object, too.

The church is under no obligation to provide these people any more than they would for any other funeral at their location.

The people should expect that there are some guidelines that they need to follow.

Now, if they often had HS funerals, and that lifestyle was openly advocated and displayed at previous funerals there, then you might have a point.

But to expect the family and guests to behave in a certain way is not beyond the realm of understanding.

Joe

N9XR

08-13-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Aug. 13 2007,05:57)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,11:23)]Just like JEM said, our society expects homosexuals to have a spouse of the opposite sex and then do their little escapades of lust with whom they want. THEN, this whole thing of huggy huggy smoochy smoochy is no longer taboo.
I never said any such thing, and don't believe that to be the case.

Society and church are two different things. Society, for the most part, accepts homosexuality. Many churches, however, do not.

Most churches recognize that homosexual tendencies are there in some people. They also teach that homosexual relations are a sin.

So, if you have HS desires, yet want to be in good standing with a church, you need to not act on those feelings. You do not need to get married, but you can't be having HS relations. That is where the sin enters in.

If you have desires for a woman that is not your wife, it would be a sin to act on those as well. You can have the thoughts, but they need to be restrained.

It would be a sin for me to have sexual relations with a woman that I was not married to. It would be a sin to have sex with another man, regardless of our marriage relationship. That is the philosophy of many churches, not just mine.

Joe
Quote[/b] ]Certainly you jest.

And certainly you should be able to see the difference, and understand the difference.

Yes. The difference is that the war hero did not apparently have a spouse of the opposite sex, and the AWOL homo does have one. Other than that, there are few differences. The article states that there were pictures of hugging and kissing that would not be tolerated. You imply here that homo kissing and hugging photos are acceptable in instances where Dubya is involved, and we know several things about him. One is that he went AWOL during war, and the other is that he has a wife. Unless you are talking about political stance. But the church cannot really post a political stance.

So yes, you did make the statement that being married makes the homo thing okay in your inferences.

Quote[/b] ] If GWB were to have a funeral here, they would probably not show this picture, or refer to Joe as his "partner" or "long time companion".

But what if they did want to show the picture. That was my question. I do not see in the article where they wanted to list the friend as a long time companion or lover. They just wanted to revere him as they felt he would want to be remembered.

Quote[/b] ]That's all these people had to do if they really wanted the funeral at this church. Comply with some rules. Thats it, very simple.

Yup. The article stated that the family wanted to comply, but the church totally backed out.

Quote[/b] ]All kisses or embraces are not sexual in nature...

If they wanted to flaunt or celebrate his queerness, they can go elsewhere.

Double standards. Those of us who do not like queerness of any kind are forced to watch queerness on the news everyday by the commander chimp. Many others long to watch the queerness flow. I don't stand in their way of wet kisses and homo love.

W3MIV

08-13-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,14:23)]Just like JEM said, our society expects homosexuals to have a spouse of the opposite sex and then do their little escapades of lust with whom they want. #
What a foolish comment. Indeed, it is so foolish it causes me to doubt your intelligence, Jerry. Or, perhaps, to doubt it more now than before.

"Society" does not expect a homosexual to have a spouse of the opposite sex, least of all those of us who may be critics of homosexual "behavior," which I will hasten to define as aberrant sexual acts and not as personal mannerisms or dress. If anything, "society" would hope that the homosexual would have NO spouse.

Quote[/b] ]THEN, this whole thing of huggy huggy smoochy smoochy is no longer taboo.

I am not quite sure what you are struggling to say here, are you?

W3MIV

08-13-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,15:31)]Double standards. #Those of us who do not like queerness of any kind are forced to watch queerness on the news everyday by the commander chimp. #Many others long to watch the queerness flow. #I don't stand in their way of wet kisses and homo love.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

W0UZR

08-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Aug. 13 2007,12:50)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 13 2007,10:54)]Additionally, isn't it intolerant of YOU to have a problem with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality since they can't help being that way? #It seems it may be you who is bigoted.
Holy crap you are off the mark.

Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia – THEY ARE ALL CRIMES against the laws of our Country – THE FRIGGING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. #I know you religious cooks want religious law to supercede constitutional law – BUT IT DOES NOT. #Whether you like it or not, there is a WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATES (here come the nut job flames now). #Homosexuality is not a crime. #It may be against your religious code, but frankly who gives a damn about your stupid religious code – it does not apply.

The father of our constitutional democracy was arguably Thomas Jefferson – who was an agnostic at best.

bbc
Didn't catch that the first time I read kp3ft's post.

Now, he meant well but used the wrong words here. I think what he was trying to bring up is the fact that most everyone agrees that Jesus taught Love, and tolerance. Right? Ok, And if a person isn't, then he is sort of bigoted in a way. For not being loving and tolerant, that is. Anyway, I think that is what he is trying to say here
But it is pretty hard to have tolerance when someone does a despicable act, an unforgivable act.. This is why it is VERY hard to be a Christian because we need to forgive Everyone for Anything. Even pedophiles.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 13 2007,06:39)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,14:23)]Just like JEM said, our society expects homosexuals to have a spouse of the opposite sex and then do their little escapades of lust with whom they want.
What a foolish comment. Indeed, it is so foolish it causes me to doubt your intelligence, Jerry. Or, perhaps, to doubt it more now than before.

"Society" does not expect a homosexual to have a spouse of the opposite sex, least of all those of us who may be critics of homosexual "behavior," which I will hasten to define as aberrant sexual acts and not as personal mannerisms or dress. If anything, "society" would hope that the homosexual would have NO spouse.

Quote[/b] ]THEN, this whole thing of huggy huggy smoochy smoochy is no longer taboo.

I am not quite sure what you are struggling to say here, are you?
Thank you. Alberto. If you question my intelligence, I know I can't be far from perfection.

W3MIV

08-13-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,15:44)]Thank you. Alberto. #If you question my intelligence, I know I can't be far from perfection.
If you are, you arrived after doing a 360. Did you time it?

kc9kow

08-13-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote[/b] (WF7A @ Aug. 11 2007,10:23)]I have a slightly different take on it, Steve: religious and homosexuality aside, the church made a commitment and should have kept it. If they (the church officials) had asked questions pertaining to the service before agreeing to hosting it, then they could've gracefully declined.
As a practicing Christian, I have to say that I agree that the church should have kept the judgement to God himself because at this point it is up to God himself.

The church should have acted in accordance with scripture "Let your yes be yes and your no be no". It goes right to the committment issue.

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote[/b] (kc9kow @ Aug. 13 2007,13:02)]Quote[/b] (WF7A @ Aug. 11 2007,10:23)]I have a slightly different take on it, Steve: religious and homosexuality aside, the church made a commitment and should have kept it. If they (the church officials) had asked questions pertaining to the service before agreeing to hosting it, then they could've gracefully declined.
As a practicing Christian, I have to say that I agree that the church should have kept the judgement to God himself because at this point it is up to God himself.

The church should have acted in accordance with scripture "Let your yes be yes and your no be no". It goes right to the committment issue.
This makes no sense.

Using this logic, once they had agreed to something, they wouldn't be able to back out.

The church agreed, assuming it would be a normal funeral in their sense of the word, and apparently, the funeral would have gone on, if it had been "normal" in the view of the church.

The family didn't want to play by the church's rules. The church has no obligation to play by theirs. The family can find another venue. It will be better for all parties.

The church won't be defiled by having a gay lifestyle condoned and celebrated. The dead person won't be defiled by having his funeral at a place that preaches against homosexual practices.

That should make all sides happy.

Joe

n2ize

08-13-2007, 08:12 PM

Amazing... here we are in the 21st century and some people sill cannot get over the fact that some people are gay. Truly mind boggling.

N9XR

08-13-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 13 2007,07:12)]Amazing... here we are in the 21st century and some people sill cannot get over the fact that some people are gay. Truly mind boggling.
Yeah. And there are so many who cannot comprehend a simple newspaper article. they make up their own stories.

This is really worse than sad.

n2ize

08-13-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 13 2007,11:06)]Question:

Some argue that homosexuality is a genetic thing and cannot be helped.

But some also say that there is a genetic disposition to being obese as well as a genetic disposition to various forms of addiction.

Why then are fat people and addicts shunned? #Are they not merely a product of genetics?

And don't get me started on the bias against us left handed folks living in a right handed world.
Quote[/b] ]

Why then are fat people and addicts shunned? #Are they not merely a product of genetics?

Because of stereotypes. Fat people are unfairly assumed to be lazy, sloppy, unclean, and greedy. Addicts are stereotyped to be crazed, incoherent, dumb, and potentuially dangerous criminals who will steal anything that is not well guarded.

In the case of the latter our system of drug prohibition has created that image and made it a partial reality for some. In the case of fat people I have no idea how the negative stereotypes came about.

K7JEM

08-13-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Aug. 13 2007,12:31)]Quote[/b] ]Certainly you jest.

And certainly you should be able to see the difference, and understand the difference.

Yes. The difference is that the war hero did not apparently have a spouse of the opposite sex, and the AWOL homo does have one. Other than that, there are few differences. The article states that there were pictures of hugging and kissing that would not be tolerated. You imply here that homo kissing and hugging photos are acceptable in instances where Dubya is involved, and we know several things about him. One is that he went AWOL during war, and the other is that he has a wife. Unless you are talking about political stance. But the church cannot really post a political stance.

So yes, you did make the statement that being married makes the homo thing okay in your inferences.

Quote[/b] ] If GWB were to have a funeral here, they would probably not show this picture, or refer to Joe as his "partner" or "long time companion".

But what if they did want to show the picture. That was my question. I do not see in the article where they wanted to list the friend as a long time companion or lover. They just wanted to revere him as they felt he would want to be remembered.

Quote[/b] ]That's all these people had to do if they really wanted the funeral at this church. Comply with some rules. Thats it, very simple.

Yup. The article stated that the family wanted to comply, but the church totally backed out.

Quote[/b] ]All kisses or embraces are not sexual in nature...

If they wanted to flaunt or celebrate his queerness, they can go elsewhere.

Double standards. Those of us who do not like queerness of any kind are forced to watch queerness on the news everyday by the commander chimp. Many others long to watch the queerness flow. I don't stand in their way of wet kisses and homo love.
This is really convoluted.

You don't seem to understand the difference between someone who is an acknowledged homosexual, and someone you are trying to "paint" as such.

There is no evidence that GWB is HS. The wife thing and the AWOL thing are red herring.

I can hug another man, or even kiss another man, and most people that see the context will understand the implications. Something done as a greeting in a public place is a far cry from something done as an expression of emotion, love, lust, or sex.

I don't even know how GWB got into this context, other than the fact that some people are obsessed with him.

If GWB and Joe were "out of the closet", then you might have something. But they're not.

This is the difference that I speak of. You, obviously see no difference. A hug or a kiss to you must always be a sexual thing, and anyone who does such a thing must be "homo" in your thought process.

Joe

kc9kow

08-13-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Aug. 12 2007,12:37)]Quote[/b] ]Additionally, isn't it intolerant of YOU to have a problem with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality since they can't help being that way? It seems it may be you who is bigoted.
Ah, but most homosexuality is between consenting adults. No "sin" there.

Pedophilia has innocent victims, and that certainly can be called a "sin". Children are not of an age to give consent, so there is no real consent there.

Bestiality, having sex with an animal, also a little strange, but has no victim...assuming that if the animal objects it can express that objection by fighting back.

Necrophilia is stange, but in this case there is no victim, since one party in the act is already dead and cannot care one way or the other. Some partners will try to simulate necrophilia and again, if between consenting adults, no victim and therefore no "sin".

To me, an amoral act or "sin" is one in which a party to the act is hurt or harmed in some way. If all parties are consenting and no individuals are harmed in any way, and society is not harmed in any way then there is no sin. Any other definition of "sin" is arbitrary and is often unfair to someone.

Just because you don't like people doing something does not make it a sin. Rock and Roll music is not sinful, nor is Hip Hop or Rap. Dancing is not sinful nor is sexual activity between consenting adults, no matter what that activity might be.

I think the churches really have a skewed idea of what "sin" is. I think imposing their arbitrary definitions of "sin" on others is, well, sinful.

-gary
I'll start my reply to this by starting off with:

Sin is sin and it's not measured by degree. Sin is not sin because someone dislikes it, it's sin because God says it's sin.

"Ah, but most homosexuality is between consenting adults. No "sin" there." You may be wrong depending on what state you are in. Do a search on states that prohibit this sort of thing. To offset these laws, the states I speak of also prohibit certain sexual acts even if done in private. I won't name them because we can use our imaginations.

"Bestiality, having sex with an animal, also a little strange, but has no victim...assuming that if the animal objects it can express tha