Falling off the fence.
Hey, everyone. Sorry I’m posting so late today; I spent this morning battening down the hatches in anticipation of a tropical storm that’s currently deluging Houston with rain and that may result in flooding. Bottled water and non-perishables all the way; I grew up in New Orleans, so this stuff is pretty old hat to me.
Lately I’ve been seeing many issues in gay news that leave me straddling the fence, sometimes tipping towards one side, sometimes towards the other, never quite falling off to either side. I just can’t get so rabidly up in arms that every time something happens in which gays get the short end of the stick, I can’t see the other side of the situation. The same has happened in the case of the church that canceled a gay veteran’s memorial service:
Megachurch bars memorial service for gay vet - Bay Area Reporter
A nondenominational Christian megachurch near Dallas at the last minute withdrew permission to host a memorial service for an openly gay Navy veteran of the Persian Gulf War. Reactions have been numerous and largely negative.
Members of the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas offered to host an August 9 memorial service for Cecil Howard Sinclair, who died at the age of 46 of complications associated with heart surgery. He had served in the Gulf War and was in a long-term relationship with another veteran, Paul Wagner. Sinclair was not a member of the church, but his brother worked there in a nonreligious capacity.
That offer was withdrawn the day before the service. The Reverend Gary Simons defended the decision, telling the Associated Press that no one knew that Sinclair was gay when the offer was made. He said the church believes that homosexuality is a sin and that hosting the service would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle.
Do you see where I’m a little split here? On one hand we have people actively discriminating against homosexuals, which to me is, of course, wrong. I could go on and on about how it’s bigoted, hateful, close-minded, dehumanizing, but we all know how I feel about the subject at this point. I couldn’t live with myself if I felt that it was wrong to be who I am, and I don’t.
But on the other hand, we have a church exercising their freedom of belief - their right to practice their faith as they see fit as long as it isn’t actively harming other people. Just as they can’t force others to believe homosexuality is wrong, we can’t force them to believe that it’s right, as long as they aren’t advocating harm. While denying someone the right to host a memorial service at their church is insulting, it isn’t really actively harmful.
My gut tells me to lean one way; my head tells me to lean the other, and I end up sighing and shaking my head somewhere in between and wishing we lived in a world where such issues weren’t even a problem.
So I’d like to know: what do you think? What are your feelings on this issue, and do you think there’s a clear case of right and wrong?
gay war veterans, memorial services, dallas megachurch, cecil howard sinclair, paul wagner
August 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I agree that it’s a tricky situation. I personally think that it was wrong of the church to cancel the memorial service, especially on such short notice. My sense of anger is mainly directed at denying the family and friends the chance to grieve. While I understand and respect the church’s position, I think it was a truly rotten thing for them to do. While there may be no clear right and wrong in the issue, the church’s conduct just seems….lousy.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I definitely agree with Michelle. The church should’ve approached this with a lot more consideration for the family and friends.
Peace, love and chocolate chip cookie dough!
August 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
It is a difficult situation to classify; made more so by the fact that the person wasn’t actually affiliated with the church. The way the article reads, it sounds as though the man who wanted the memorial service wasn’t even a member of the church, but rather served as an accountant or secretary, or in some other function.
I mostly feel the same; the church shouldn’t have pulled out as it did, and not at such short notice, but it certainly had every right to.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:08 am
We don’t live in a world of black and white, but one of many shades of gray. Because of that there’s hardly ever a case of right or wrong, mostly it’s about persepective.
Therefore I think that being on the fence is something positive. You’re sitting a little higher than everyone else and you get a clear view of both sides of the issue. You’ve got room to swing your legs around and wriggle a bit, and it the end it doesn’t really matter which side you choose, because you’ve considered every angle and every argumen and you know what you’re talking about.
People should sit on fences more often =)
August 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Seeing the gray may be a more practical perspective, but its not without its own fallacies. The most important thing is to ask the right questions. Adri, it seems the reason you’re conflicted is because you’re asking two separate yet similar questions: First, was the church right to do this, and second, did they _have the right_ to act as they did? Unless you’re a dictator of a totalitarian society, these will always be different questions.
My two cents: what the church did was wrong, even if they had the legal right to do it. When dealing with matters like these, it’s important to keep your word even if you didn’t know everything going on at the time. Funerals aren’t an opportunity to proselytize, and holding a memorial service for a veteran honors their deeds, not their lifestyle.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Indikaze: Actually, the distinction between those two is where I have trouble, because I’ve got a rather odd view of right vs. wrong and half the time don’t even think the concepts exist above personally defined ideas of “what I like” vs. “what I don’t like”. So I kind of try to push those aside when considering whether or not someone has the right to do something, and try not to let my personal idea of what’s right and wrong influence the way I look at something, as it’s even more subjective than the idea of whether or not someone has the right to do something.