Well...yeah. Having told the family that the dead man was not worthy of being buried from their church then it seems to me that any actions afterwards were insulting. The family, quite rightly, told them to keep their money and their food and to leave them alone. If I it were me I'd do the same.
Were they simply supposed to cave in to the family’s desire to display blatant homosexual pictures?
What was blatant? The family says that none of the pictures contained same sex individuals kissing or hugging. Taking that out then define exactly what a 'blatant homosexual picture' is. Can you do that?
The basic problem is that homosexuals want acceptance of what Christians call sin. This is entirely different from an attitude of repentance and humbleness. I’m sure that there are homosexuals who are repentant and humble, but we don’t hear about them. It’s all about flaunting and pride.
The man's family wanted to bury their family member. He was a homosexual, but they accepted him anyway. They were not going to deny who he was or refuse to acknowledge people he loved. The church apparently demanded that as the price for allowing the funeral. I am sure that if they had made their 'no funerals for homosexuals' policy clear to begin with, the man's family would have politely thanked them and politely declined the offer. Then the church could have gone on, safe in the knowledge it had dodged the bullet. But the church didn't do its homework and if shot itself in the foot.
The family decided to turn this into a political situation rather than getting on with preparations for the memorial.
How exactly did they do that. A lot of accusations about their motives are flying but I don't see where in the article any of them are supported. It seems that the only 'political' act they took was refusing to hide the fact that the man was homosexual. They weren't advocating gay orgies in the aisles or porn pictures over the altar. They were merely saying that this was their son/brother/partner. He was who he was. They accepted him for who he was and weren't going to deny the fact or hide it. Why is that political?
To attempt some analogies, how about, say, Buddhists demanding a Buddhist service in a Jewish temple? How about demanding that a baseball game be played according to the rules of football? The church was trying to be accommodating and the family was not.
Lame analogies aside, I don't see where the church was being accomodating. They took their stand, after making the offer. They're entitled to it. But having taken their stand they should have left the family alone, not run after them and try to force food and money and unwanted visits on them. Was the church trying to ease its guilty feelings?
If a person does not adhere to the belief statements of the church, the church has no commitment to accommodate.
According to the “Dallas Morning News” at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081007dnmetgayfuneral.3617689.html “the photos that the family selected alerted church officials that there might be a problem with the service, Mr. Simons said.
Not OK with photos
“Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,” he said. “My ministry associates were taken aback.”
And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service. “We had no control over the format of the memorial,” Mr. Simons said.”
Also at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/
“The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”
opinions does not change composition. Pull your trousers down, if you have a penis you are a man. Be a man. If you have ovaries you are a woman. its that simple.