Replies

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.

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.

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.