Replies

Since the church knew he had been a homosexual and the church offered its facillities, the church must have therefore been offering their facilities for a funeral that freely promoted homosexuality.

You make it sound like the Sinclair family was going to conduct a recruiting drive. The man was who he was. He had a loving family and a partner who happened to be of the same gender. The family offered pictures which celebrated his whole life, not just his sex life, and some of those pictures showed him with his partner. I don't see that as 'promoting homosexuality' but remembering a family member.

On the contrary, homosexuality is the very same sinful lifestyle that they were trying to rescue him from.

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

Also, you made the following shallow statement as if it somehow reflected poorly on this particular church, as if they were doing something unusual that all other churches do not do as well.

Well, I can't say that I've ever heard of a church offering to conduct a funeral and then pulling out. That does strike me a somewhat unusual.

To apply your -unlimited control- view would mean that when a church gives control to people for the funeral of a pedophile (the church would have known he was a pedophile), this must therefore permit scores of photos to be shown of the pedophile posing with various naked babies.

Taking the matter to idiotic extremes shows a bit of desperation on your part - Mr. Sinclair was in a legal, adult relationship with a consenting partner. He wasn't preying on anyone and he wasn't committing a crime, not even in Texas.

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.

"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...