Church won't hold funeral for gay man

The Dallas Morning News ^ | August 9 2007 | JEFFREY WEISS

[puroresu]

That’s the way things are in Narcissism Land. If you don’t celebrate me, you must hate me, and therefore I hate you.

[puroresu]

Yes, Your Highness.

[lady lawyer]

I think your responses are completely nonsensical. Sorry.

I don’t want to go through point by point, but tolerance and sincere Christian charity can coexist. Indeed, they do all the time. “Hate the sin but love the sinner” is real. The Church didn’t have to offer anything, but it did, to its members’ credit. While ultimate judgment is the Lord’s, we all make judgments when we decide what acts to encourage, and which to discourage. To argue that we have no right to do that is to argue that we can’t set or defend standards at all. This church had a right to set its standards and limits. They probably didn’t realize that the man’s family would be using the funeral to send messages of acceptance of homosexual behavior.

[longtermmemmory]

this is silly,

it is a Church kindly offering to hold a funeral for a dead man, it is not obligated to hold a ‘gay’ pride parade.

[Old Landmarks]

In response to my statement which was meant to denote the church's known moral stance against homosexuality, which I repeat here,
On the contrary, homosexuality is the very same sinful lifestyle that they were trying to rescue him from.,

you responded:-- At his funeral? A little late, don't you think?

Not that I think for one moment that you missed my real point, or mistook the chronological context of when they were trying to rescue him from homosexuality, but I will correct you anyway.

They -were- trying to rescue him from homosexuality while he was still living. Obviously they -were not- still trying to rescue him from homosexuality at his own funeral.

The point I was making was obvious. No reasonable person would assume this church would allow images reflecting positively on a destructive part of this man's life that they were trying to rescue him from.

[plain talk]

A key passage “He did not belong to a church.”

[DBeers]

"Mr. Sinclair was in a legal, adult relationship with a consenting partner."

LOL --is that what you call it?

Other than the unnatural sexual acrobatics that one must engage in to be a practicing homosexual WHAT makes this relationship different from any other...

Face reality --IT is all about the SEX and the Church does not wish to promote disordered sexual and sinful activities -regrdless you wish to give it a pass as something comparable to normality...

[Cecils Partner]

I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations. First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil's partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so. At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration. On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil's sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos. Cecil's brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. Our officiator was a baptist minister. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK. On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil's brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something had gone wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made. Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil's niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn't allow. Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn't think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected. The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil's obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July. The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends. To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn't even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces. Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice. If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided. If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil's remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location. I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.

[texas booster]

Thank you for letting us know the other side of the story.

Since all we have to go on is the newspaper article, our speculation can go astray. I suspect that the turn of events on the church’s side of this decision is more complicated than we know.

[Salvation]

hate the sin, love the sinner.

[Cecils Partner]

Sir, Please go ahead and send my response to everyone, as I am not overly Internet or blog savvy. I found the thread when searching for articles related to Cecil’s passing, as we have been interviewed by several TV and newspapers over the last day or so due to this issue. I have no problem with someone opposing my sexual preference. I grew up myself in a very conservative Catholic family. My own family no longer recognizes me as their child. As I stated in my initial response, as a veteran myself, I truly believe and would vehemently fight to defend the right of this church to reject us. The only trouble again is the manner in which they did it. It bothers me that the minister of the church even is quoted in the article as stating that there were very strong images of homosexuality in the pictures. This is absolutely not true. I am doubtful that whomever made the decision to shut us out even looked at them. We have given a copy of all 83 pictures we sent to the church to all of the interviewers over the last day, but none of the stories I have seen on TV at least have called this preacher to task for his blatant lie. I dislike the fact that he is using falsehoods to cover up the decision they made. The hypocrisy of that astounds me. That is truly the part of the story I want heard. I personally do not think we were trying to push any gay or homosexual agenda. In fact, through the entire ceremony that we did hold, the only actual reference towards his orientation was that reading the obituary did recognize me as his partner. If the church was opposed to that, I would have disagreed with it, but bitten my tough and gone along with it. The reason we chose the church is because his brother is a very active member there. He is one of the most loving, gentle, and giving people I have ever met in my life. He works as a maintenance man, normally putting in 60 or more hours a week there for little more than minimum wage. He has no insurance or benefits, as the multimillion dollar congregation states they cannot afford it. He is a simple man, with a severe learning disability, and is also hearing disabled, and never truly understood how ill his brother was until the day he died. He ran from his hospital room, and we found him later in a hallway, curled into a fetal position and nearly non- responsive. His wife, who is also hearing and mentally impaired, called their church and they sent someone over. This kind man consoled Lee, and spend a long time with him quietly reading passages to him from the Bible until he became more responsive and was able to join us back in the room. This man then led us in a prayer on behalf of Cecil, and it was at that time this all began. After the prayer, he asked us if we had made any arrangements. At that time we had not. He said he worked at the church with Lee, and so then left to make some phone calls. He came back to us about 15 minutes later and advised us that the church was willing to host the funeral. Again, we never asked, they offered, and we accepted. Another thing that was not explained in the article, and I do not think I mentioned in my response to you, is that there was no body. Cecil was suffering from end stage heart failure. He had had a portable artificial pump installed and was awaiting a heart transplant. This device is quite new, and the doctors even after nearly a year had yet been able to identify the initial cause of his heart disease. Due to this, we spoke with the medical school, and then donated his body to the school for medical research into both his disease and the device. So there was no burial being done. We were not in need of a cemetery or anything else. Essentially, all we needed was a building for people to gather in. Since the church is located quite near our home, about a mile or so, and since it meant so much to his brother, was the reason we accepted. In all honestly, had we known at any time that anyhting we proposed was offensive to this church, we would have done everything we could to accommodate them for the sake of Cecil's brother. As I said in my earlier reply, we were never contacted by anyone. At no time did anyone advise us that they disagreed with any of the plans we presented. I am sorry, as I am really starting to ramble, but I just want you to understand this from our perspective. I am not trying to convert you to our “side”, as I don’t believe there is a right or wrong side in this issue. But I do want the truth told. You are also welcome to post this reply into the group as well if you wish.

[Non-Sequitur]

LOL --is that what you call it?

That's what the law calls it.

Face reality --IT is all about the SEX and the Church does not wish to promote disordered sexual and sinful activities -regrdless you wish to give it a pass as something comparable to normality...

So the church wanted no mention of homosexuality at all. If a church said to someone "We'll hold a funeral for your brother, just don't mention that he was career military" what would you think? The man's family knew who he was. They accepted who he was. The church could not, which was their right. I just don't understand why, given their feelings about him, they made the offer in the first place.

[Non-Sequitur]

They -were- trying to rescue him from homosexuality while he was still living. Obviously they -were not- still trying to rescue him from homosexuality at his own funeral.

They had nothing to do with him while he was still living? Didn't you read the article? He was not a member of the church and had never attended.

The point I was making was obvious. No reasonable person would assume this church would allow images reflecting positively on a destructive part of this man's life that they were trying to rescue him from.

Then why didn't they say from the beginning "We'll throw a funeral for you, but for God's sake don't mention he was a homosexual!" Had they been honest from the beginning I have no doubt that Mr. Sinclair's family would have politely declined their offer and saved them a lot of embarassment.

[texas booster]

I FReepmailed Paul and received his permission to ping everyone who has posted on this thread.

While most FReepers hold strong views on homosexuality, we can all recognize that he has lost a friend. Please keep this in mind as you post.

I wanted everyone who has posted on this thread to hear his side of the discussion. One of the problems that forums have is pushing through the newspaper article that we post. We all understand that they can be slanted however the writers and editors choose. This can be intentional or unintentional.

The truth of a situation is in between both sides of a story. Please feel free to link to the original article, and then read Cecil's Partners response here and below.

It is not often that small stories like this get much attention from the media. It is even less often that we get to hear from the participants. I dare say that none of the participants had any idea of the media circus this would become. As always, please read before posting.

Thanks to all for maintaining the decorum of this forum on this thread, and in welcoming the many new viewers who will read this entire thread.

[Suzy Quzy]

He belonged to NO Church.....this church has NO obligation to him....it isn't right to celebrate one's SEX life at your funeral.

ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES.

[Tax-chick]

I hadn’t posted to this thread, but having been pinged here, I’ll just offer my sympathies to everyone involved.

[robertpaulsen]

"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," he (Rev. Gary Simons) said. "My ministry associates were taken aback."

Someone's lying and I don't know who. I suppose it could be the church, but they have the pictures and multiple witnesses to back them up. And, quite frankly, showing "very strong homosexual images" at a funeral sounds like something a homosexual partner would do.

Sorry. But I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[Responsibility2nd]

We all understand that they can be slanted however the writers and editors choose....

You ain't lyin'.

Typical MSM article here - with its anti-Christian Agenda - had FReepers bashing the church from post #2.

Texas megachurch cancels vet's memorial service at last minute because he was gay

The fact he was a vet had diddly to do with anything. Even the headline is a lie.

Always remember Big Media hates Christians as you read these posts.

[Responsibility2nd]

homosexual agenda ping.

It would help to read the thread. Then read post #131 by Cecils Partner.

Then draw your own conclusions.

[Responsibility2nd]

Ooops.

Read #128 also.

Must read #128.