user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : other
I just read this over in MSN Land, and again I despair for mankind. Man was good enough to die for them, but not good enough to be memorialized for giving his life for them. One more reason for Hell to be still open for business...
but it's separation of church and state, not that separation of church and state is cruel, in case someone thought that is what I meant
Voted : Church has the right but they are morally wrong
As this ballot proves whoever said the religious hold the moral high ground were sadly mistaken.Sure the Church has the right to refuse service to anyone they chose but to refuse service simply because that person was gay is wrong.He was a human being just like them and should be treated with the same respect. This is plain homophobia and they should be ashamed.
Gee, I am shocked and appalled...However, the video tribute did not help matters either... The church has the right to make the decision that they did, however, I believe the church should have allowed the service to go on minus the video tribute...Afterall, his sexuality such not be the focus of the service whether gay or straight...
^ Correction: "his sexuality *should* not be the focus..."
Voted : The mega-church "has the right" but, is acts IMMORALLY being political and "fear based".
I read the article a couple of hours ago, and I've had some time to think about it. IF they wouldn't allow a video of a deceased person demonstrating the SAME level of affection toward an opposite sex person, THEN they might have a shred of tangible integrity and credibility. It's a ridiculous scenario for comparison, but I'm sure they wouldn't allow a deceased heterosexual person's family to place a porn video on, for instance. My inclination is that the decision was actually made by "behind the scenes" major financial contributors who are homophobes. Churches need money to fund their budget, and it (money) doesn't fall out of the sky for them. Pastors are, in addition to being inspirational leaders, also directed by--and spokespersons for--whoever represents the governing structure of said organization. In other words, it's business, plain and simple. They often feel it necessary to yield to the monied interests.
larry, separation of church and state is one of my holy grails, but this reads like, "My GOD, he's one of them-thar ho-mo-sexyals! We cain't be a-salutin' his type! We jes' might be a-sent down ta Hayull fer it!" I stand by my initial remarks.
^I think it's cruel and terrible, we are all God's children, and I wouldn't belong to a church that did this, I'm just saying, they have the right if they choose because of separation of church and state.
Voted : No they should have allowed the services to be held in their church
I think there was more concern given to the feelings of their congregation and the bottom line (money).
That can't be right.
|
|