Could A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding?

[Stargazer]

Valentinus,

Like he said, words are so inadequate sometimes.

Nevertheless, what has happened to you has made me so heartsick I could cry. I haven't the vaguest idea of where to start in trying to provide any comfort at all, but if you don't mind, then I will cry with you over this. And pray for you as well. You may not believe that there is comfort in the balm of Gilead, but there is.

May God bless you in your grief.

[selek1]

Don't be pious with me Selek.

Valentinus- I feel for you. Truly and deeply.

This cannot have been an easy cross to bear.

I can relate in that, growing up, I was the "little *******", the "red-headed" stepchild. I was physically and emotionally abused by a step-father who resented my very existence.

Later, when I joined the Church, I was "shunned" by a family with deep roots in both the Salvation Army and Southern Baptist religions.

Time healed those wounds, and led to understanding and acceptance by my family.

I have every confidence that it will in your case, as well.

You asked me what my definition of family might mean for you. here are the highlights:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God."

"Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."

"Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God"

The Gospel of Christ is predicated on repentance and forgiveness.

There is no sin, no predilection, no temptation, no affliction too great that it cannot be salved, healed, and redeemed by Christ.

Christ can- and will- heal all who come to him penitent and humble.

But he cannot help those who refuse the balm he offers, or who demand it on their own terms.

While I sympathize with your pain, I am obligated to point out that your pain does not speak to the "rightness" of your argument.

The hatred, the vitriol, the bitterness, the dismissal, the indifference of which you accused me (and by extension) the Church, are entirely of your own making.

They do not represent my opinion, nor those of the Church.

No matter how bleak your world may seem at the moment, you have mischaracterized both my position and that of the Church.

Rather than a "homo" with whom we are better off without, you are a child of God- beloved of our Heavenly Father."

We do not agree with your position or agenda- but that does not mean we love you any less.

It does not mean that we wish ill to befall you, nor that we wish to see you suffer.

You suffered a great hurt, today.

But lashing out as you have cannot and will not heal your pain- merely spread it around a bit.

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

<sacrcasm>Well, thank you Selek1 for your kindly remarks.</sacrcasm>

So, why couldn't you just put a sock in it for a few moments of time? The truth just burning a bit too hard in you to give us all a little decent interval of grace? Some of what you said should have been said without the load of the rest of it.

In. My. Humble. Opinion.

[selek1]

<sacrcasm>Well, thank you Selek1 for your kindly remarks.</sacrcasm>

So, why couldn't you just put a sock in it for a few moments of time? The truth just burning a bit too hard in you to give us all a little decent interval of grace? Some of what you said should have been said without the load of the rest of it.

In. My. Humble. Opinion.

Actually, Stargazer, that WAS the revised and sympathetic post.

The earlier one was much more combatative.

And with no sarcasm at all- I am perfectly sincere in my sympathy for Valentinus.

Had it been mine to do, I would not have handled the situation the way he has reported it.

And that's the problem, in my mind: no one here has advocated for the sort of hateful, hurtful, abusive conduct he has received.

It is the bearing of false witness for him to accuse us.

Of course, I do find the course of the conversation to be fascinating:

A poster makes an untenable and egregiously offensive statement and is called on it.

In his defense, the same poster proclaims he doesn't want pity, and then plays the sympathy card and accuses all around him of being hateful and intolerant.

The usual suspects then line up- handkerchiefs in hand- to forgive him for behavior that would not otherwise be tolerated.

Yes- Valentinus is suffering- but that doesn't excuse his behavior.

It doesn't make his reckless and hurtful accusations any more true.

That he is suffering does not distract from the fact that he raised the entire digression to justify his attacks on others.

How would he have been received- and what would the response have been- had he opened an independent thread laying out the hurt and the circumstances behind it?

I think we both know- he would have been treated to the same outpouring of sympathy he received here, untainted by his attempt to smear any and all who disagree with him.

You speak of "putting a sock in it".

Does Valentinus' pain justify him in spreading falsehoods about or attacking others? Does it justify a monumental derail and a hateful caricature of the Church?

Why is it that only one side has any obligation to "put a sock in it"?

Why is the other exempted?

Or is this a situation where overwrought emotionalism automagically drives all reason from the conversation?

Must we shut down our brains because our hearts are tugged?

I understand that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have perfected this technique.

Is that now to be the standard to which all MADB discussions will be held as well?

Editted for spelling.

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[Stargazer]

He edited what he originally wrote, so I can't quote it back in response, but I don't recall him saying anything at all like what you seem to have seen. Unless he edited it further before I saw it.

It sounded like he showed up and was shunned. Did you read something different, like he breezed in and went off offending everyone around him with inappropriate words and behavior? I didn't.

I think I will make allowances for his state of mind as it is right now.

Me and my handkerchief.

[selek1]

He edited what he originally wrote, so I can't quote it back in response, but I don't recall him saying anything at all like what you seem to have seen. Unless he edited it further before I saw it.

In Post # 128, Valentinus stated:

If a parent can't set aside their own bias for the sake of just being there for their child then they dont deserve to be a parent to that child. I'm not suggesting that they support the decisions the child makes but to be there and show love. If its "tough love" to refrain from attendance or showing compassion or mercy then keep that love to yourself. No one wants or needs it.

He- who has never borne the burden of parenthood- presumed to lecture us about who is- and who is not- a "deserving" parent.

When he was called out on that behavior, he responded with Post #143- which has since been editted.

In the original post, he accused me of false piety, dodged the questions asked of him, and then went on a tear about how the Church- and apparently anyone who disagrees with him- "shuns", rejects, and endorses the abuse and marginalization of homosexuals.

These charges were patently false- and were only partly mitigated by his subsequent edit.

It sounded like he showed up and was shunned.

Yes- that happened earlier, and according to his own words was a follow up episode to an even earlier blowup in the emergency room.

I feel for him, in that regard, and fervently wish that things had happened differently. I also doubt that the Church would have endorsed or condoned the situation as it is described to us.

That having been said, that "he breezed in and went off offending everyone around him with inappropriate words and behavior' adequately and accurately describes his behavior in this thread.

I think I will make allowances for his state of mind as it is right now.

As will I- but that doesn't mean for a moment that I will stand idly by while I and others are viciously slandered.

As it stands- this digression is entirely irrelevant to the topic except in a single regard, and this marks my last comment on the matter.

The single regard in which Valentinus' situation is relevant is this:

Valentinus has my unqualified love, sympathy, and prayers.

That does not require me to abandon my own convictions of right or wrong or to endorse his behavior.

Edited April 3, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

I edited my post because I didn't want to be mean. If Selek saw what i originally posted then i apologize for being mean spirited.

Sorry Selek.

[selek1]

I edited my post because I didn't want to be mean. If Selek saw what i originally posted then i apologize for being mean spirited.

Sorry Selek.

Check your mail box.

I, likewise, apologize if my response mischaracterized your position.

I am very sorry for the hurts you are bearing and the trials before you. I sincerely and deeply wish that things had been different, and grieve with you in your loss.

[Damien the Leper]

Selek is right. I went on a rude and vicious and emotionally charged tirade. I sincerely apologize for my behavior.

Thank you - that is very classy in light of some of the opinions shared here. I hope all posters follow your example of patience and repentance when tempers are lost. - Ares

[Ares]

Thread closed by request of thread author.