Wedding Question

[ItalianGypsy]

I was on a secular message forum & would like your input on this situation. This woman was upset that her son, who is gay, was not invited to the wedding of a born again family member. Also, during the throwing of the bouquet, only single women of a certain age were to catch the bouquet. If one was divorced, they weren't permitted to do it.

I believe that the gay man should have been invited, and that all the single or divorced women should have been given the option of catching the bouquet.

 

[hsilgne]

I was on a secular message forum & would like your input on this situation. This woman was upset that her son, who is gay, was not invited to the wedding of a born again family member. Also, during the throwing of the bouquet, only single women of a certain age were to catch the bouquet. If one was divorced, they weren't permitted to do it.

I believe that the gay man should have been invited, and that all the single or divorced women should have been given the option of catching the bouquet.

Sounds pretty wacky. Was Fred Phelps performing the ceremony?

I agree with you.

 

[ContentInHim]

I agree with you also! It was just plain rude. Otoh, even though I am technically single, I guarantee you that I would not be up there with the 20-somethings looking for the bouquet.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

I was on a secular message forum & would like your input on this situation. This woman was upset that her son, who is gay, was not invited to the wedding of a born again family member. Also, during the throwing of the bouquet, only single women of a certain age were to catch the bouquet. If one was divorced, they weren't permitted to do it.

I believe that the gay man should have been invited, and that all the single or divorced women should have been given the option of catching the bouquet.

I don't think it was rude. Maybe the part about the divorced women was rude. Maybe. But I respect the fact that they take their Chrisitian faith so seriously. The bride and groom (I presume they both requested this) were only staying true to their beliefs and doing what their conscience told them to do. I don't think it's anyone's right to criticize. And personally, I'm okay with what they did. I guess that makes me close-minded too. Oh well. I'm fine with that too. Just call me a Jerry Fallwell Christian, lol !

 

[ItalianGypsy]

I don't think it was rude. Maybe the part about the divorced women was rude. Maybe. But I respect the fact that they take their Chrisitian faith so seriously. The bride and groom (I presume they both requested this) were only staying true to their beliefs and doing what their conscience told them to do. I don't think it's anyone's right to criticize. And personally, I'm okay with what they did. I guess that makes me close-minded too. Oh well. I'm fine with that too. Just call me a Jerry Fallwell Christian, lol !

And yet another reason why those wanting to be Christians staying away lest they be judged. Not everyone is perfect. The gay man is not a leper. It's not like he was going to break out in song & prance around. He would have been a guest like any other. The "bride & groom were staying true to their beliefs" by being exactly the way the seclular world sees Christians, unbending, unloving, & rigid. Christ wasn't like that.

 

[hsilgne]

I don't think it was rude. Maybe the part about the divorced women was rude. Maybe. But I respect the fact that they take their Chrisitian faith so seriously. The bride and groom (I presume they both requested this) were only staying true to their beliefs and doing what their conscience told them to do. I don't think it's anyone's right to criticize. And personally, I'm okay with what they did. I guess that makes me close-minded too. Oh well. I'm fine with that too. Just call me a Jerry Fallwell Christian, lol !

Well, from what I know of Jerry Falwell he would not have done that either. Just because you allow a gay person to come to a wedding doesn't mean you approve of the lifestyle they live.

Falwell got a bad rap in the media. He certainly was not as close minded as the media made him out to be. He told it like it was but he also had compassion.

Excluding someone because they are a sinner is wrong. If the bride and groom held true to their beliefs no one should have been allowed at the wedding - even themselves.

We are all sinners - remember.

Jesus was often found eating and socializing with the worst of the worst sinners. Do you think He was wrong in doing so?

 

[bliz]

I don't agree with the choices that were made, but the people having the wedding are permitted to invite and not invite whomever they wish and to include or exclude whomever they wish in whatever ctivities were planned. Their choices may really strain relationships, but that is their choice.

 

[ItalianGypsy]

Well, from what I know of Jerry Falwell he would not have done that either. Just because you allow a gay person to come to a wedding doesn't mean you approve of the lifestyle they live.

Falwell got a bad rap in the media. He certainly was not as close minded as the media made him out to be. He told it like it was but he also had compassion.

Excluding someone because they are a sinner is wrong. If the bride and groom held true to their beliefs no one should have been allowed at the wedding - even themselves.

We are all sinners - remember.

Jesus was often found eating and socializing with the worst of the worst sinners. Do you think He was wrong in doing so?

Thank you for taking the words out of my mouth. Some Christians don't realize they don't have to compromise their beliefs, but a little kindness & less judgementalness never hurt anybody. They don't realize they really can be a turn off to the secular world.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

And yet another reason why those wanting to be Christians staying away lest they be judged. Not everyone is perfect. The gay man is not a leper. It's not like he was going to break out in song & prance around. He would have been a guest like any other. The "bride & groom were staying true to their beliefs" by being exactly the way the seclular world sees Christians, unbending, unloving, & rigid. Christ wasn't like that.

Excuse me, but I'm respectful of your beliefs. So please be respectful of mine. That's all that I ask.

 

[ItalianGypsy]

Excuse me, but I'm respectful of your beliefs. So please be respectful of mine. That's all that I ask.

You're right. If you want to be like that it's your pergotative. Christianity isn't a list of do's & don't or I don't believe this or I don't believe that. It's about showing Christ's love.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

Well it's good to know you're not being snide about it. You can read that anyway you want. And for the record and this may shock you given my stance on this subject, but I actually have a friend who's a lesbian. Though, I' still working on getting over my homo-phobia.

 

[TheDag]

I was on a secular message forum & would like your input on this situation. This woman was upset that her son, who is gay, was not invited to the wedding of a born again family member. Also, during the throwing of the bouquet, only single women of a certain age were to catch the bouquet. If one was divorced, they weren't permitted to do it.

I believe that the gay man should have been invited, and that all the single or divorced women should have been given the option of catching the bouquet.

From what has been described I think is rude not to have invited this family member if the reason was simply because they are gay. There may have been another reason behind not inviting them that has not been said. Maybe some conflict over it. Just because people are family that doesn't mean they should automatically be invited.
As for the bouquet toss I being male have never participated in one but with the garter instead and have always had people tell me I should go up there and take part so I generally go up and stand near the back and talk to someone untill its over and go sit down.
I would probably be more critical of the bride and groom for specifying who could and couldn't take part. I mean if they had looked into the reasons behind it then they probably wouldn't have done it in the first place. I think the bouqet toss is as relevant as being given away and the bridal waltz. Totally irrelevant. Most people these days only do them because they feel they have to.

 

[madison1101]

I am appalled that Christians would exclude a family member because they are gay. Did they exclude heterosexuals who fornicate, or live together without marriage? Probably not.

My son is getting married on Saturday, and it is going to be a most interesting event. Both my son and the bride were raised in Baptist churches. They have since rejected organized Christianity because of this very issue. Too many Phelpsy type Christians who are homophobes. My son and his bride are in theater, where half their friends are gay.

Well, a few years ago, the pastor of the bride's parents' church was caught soliciting a prostitute and left the church. He has repented and saved his marriage. He now ministers as a grief counselor at a funeral home. The bride insisted that this man perform the ceremony, as she considers him her godfather, and he married her parents. The wedding is NOT being performed in the church, but on a college campus in the chapel. Her parents' current pastor told her father that the former pastor should NOT be performing the wedding ceremony. He is refusing to attend the wedding. And, to make matters more interesting, there will be dancing and alcohol served at the reception, which should create more friction for the parents as their church frowns on that.

I am so glad that Jesus hung out with publicans and sinners and dined in their homes. He was the ultimate role model for showing Christian love and mercy to people who do not live up to the Pharisees' standards.

God bless.

Trish

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

I'm sorry, but I would not invite anyone who is gay to my wedding. Especially and this is the real reason why, especially if it were being held in a church. No way. I guess that makes me some kind of hater, huh? Well, I'm not. I don't hate gays.

 

[hsilgne]

Matthew 5
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 7
3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

Luke 6
32 For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
34 If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
35 But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.
37 "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

 

[pete56]

Well I think I am going to wade in here to support my sister in regard to the exclusion of this Gay man from the ceremony.

If you choose to read all of the biblical injunctions regarding the acts of homosexual men you will find that in all cases in both the New and Old testaments it is roundly condemned and the perpetrator is usually described as having performed an abomination to God!

God sees the act of two men sexually interacting as abominable!

Many here have said we should do what Jesus would have done - well Jesus told us clearly that He only did what He saw the Father doing! So if God views homosexuality as abominable, then I am sure Jesus would do too.

It is notable that in all the Gospels (including some that are not canonical) that the subject of homosexuality is not raised. Adultery is covered, relationships outside of marriage is covered, prostitution is covered, embezelling is covered but homosexuality is not touched upon by Jesus. I doubt that this is because it was not happening rather He chose to exclude Himself from their company until they stopped the abominable act that God will not look upon!

So if as I have surmised here (and yes it is just my opinion) Jesus avoided homosexuals then why is it wrong for Christ followers to exclude themselves from them too?

Just my two penneth

Pete

 

[hsilgne]

Well I think I am going to wade in here to support my sister in regard to the exclusion of this Gay man from the ceremony.

If you choose to read all of the biblical injunctions regarding the acts of homosexual men you will find that in all cases in both the New and Old testaments it is roundly condemned and the perpetrator is usually described as having performed an abomination to God!

God sees the act of two men sexually interacting as abominable!

Many here have said we should do what Jesus would have done - well Jesus told us clearly that He only did what He saw the Father doing! So if God views homosexuality as abominable, then I am sure Jesus would do too.

It is notable that in all the Gospels (including some that are not canonical) that the subject of homosexuality is not raised. Adultery is covered, relationships outside of marriage is covered, prostitution is covered, embezelling is covered but homosexuality is not touched upon by Jesus. I doubt that this is because it was not happening rather He chose to exclude Himself from their company until they stopped the abominable act that God will not look upon!

So if as I have surmised here (and yes it is just my opinion) Jesus avoided homosexuals then why is it wrong for Christ followers to exclude themselves from them too?

Just my two penneth

Pete

I completely disagree with you here. Your logic is... well illogical.

You must believe then that homosexuality is a greater sin than murder, adultary, fornication, bearing false witness, pride, stealing, idolotry etc?

Ay yi yi.......

Sin is sin. Wether you like it or not - God see's your sin the same as He see's a homosexuals sin.

We are ALL called to repentance and forgiveness. If you cannot forgive then the Father will not forgive you.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

Matthew 5
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 7
3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

Luke 6
32 For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
34 If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
35 But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.
37 "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Be perfect? My Bible doesn't say be perfect. Mine says be holy just as God is holy. No human is capable of perfection.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

Well I think I am going to wade in here to support my sister in regard to the exclusion of this Gay man from the ceremony.

If you choose to read all of the biblical injunctions regarding the acts of homosexual men you will find that in all cases in both the New and Old testaments it is roundly condemned and the perpetrator is usually described as having performed an abomination to God!

God sees the act of two men sexually interacting as abominable!

Many here have said we should do what Jesus would have done - well Jesus told us clearly that He only did what He saw the Father doing! So if God views homosexuality as abominable, then I am sure Jesus would do too.

It is notable that in all the Gospels (including some that are not canonical) that the subject of homosexuality is not raised. Adultery is covered, relationships outside of marriage is covered, prostitution is covered, embezelling is covered but homosexuality is not touched upon by Jesus. I doubt that this is because it was not happening rather He chose to exclude Himself from their company until they stopped the abominable act that God will not look upon!

So if as I have surmised here (and yes it is just my opinion) Jesus avoided homosexuals then why is it wrong for Christ followers to exclude themselves from them too?

Just my two penneth

Pete

Thank you. That's all I've been trying unsuccessfully to say. That's my point exactly.

 

[madison1101]

There are several instances in the Gospels where Jesus interacted with people caught in sexual sin. The woman caught in adultery was not condemned to death because He challenged her accusers that "He who is without sin should cast the first stone." The woman at the well was not cast from His presence but given the living water.

Who is to say that the Gospel message of salvation would not be spoken at this wedding, and the gay family member might not be moved by the Holy Spirit to repentance? The Gospel message was spoken at my daughter's wedding.