OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 02:26:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My reflections on homosexuality and same-sex marriage...  (Read 12005 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: November 08, 2005, 12:36:47 AM »

The following are my answers to questions for a point-counterpoint in the school paper...

1. Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Same-sex marriage would violate the very meaning of marriage and its intended purpose. Therefore, this is not a matter of equal rights but special rights, allowing a minority to supersede the will of the majority. To compare the upholding of historical tradition with racial discrimination is offensive to civil rights leaders who consider homosexuality a choice while skin color is not.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  
  ÃƒÆ’‚Â
2. Science Magazine reported that researchers of University of Western Ontario and Stanford University analyzed the DNA in 52 pairs of gay brothers and found no evidence of the “gay gene”. With conflicting scientific studies, the case for a “gay gene” is inconclusive. Even if homosexual desire were a genetic trait, the decision to act on it would still be a choice.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Furthermore, homosexuality ignores the complimentary nature of male and female sex organs that nature provided.  If homosexuality were not a mere preference, one would need to explain how many have been able to leave the lifestyle and enjoy heterosexual relationships. Those who choose homosexuality deserve the Constitutional rights of all citizens but not a redefinition of marriage.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

3. While two men might be good fathers, neither can fit the gender-specific role of mother. The love and attention of both a mother and father may not always be available but it is certainly the ideal. Children are born with the need of two heterosexual parents, regardless if one considers this observation ‘politically incorrect’.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  
I would find it a great injustice to take away the children of those who come out of the closet. But as a matter of adoption, heterosexual spouses should always be given priority over gay couples. Furthermore, taxpayer-supported adoption agencies should not encourage the raising of children into a lifestyle that society considers immoral.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  

4. Given that same-sex marriage is prohibited in most states, allowing federal tax breaks for gay couples is a legal impossibility. Neither should the gay partners of government employees be entitled to the same benefits afforded to married couples. With entitlement programs already short on funds, extending them to gay couples could prove reckless. Taxpayer money should not subsidize what society considers immoral, whether it is homosexuality or global war declared on a foundation of lies.

Peace.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2005, 12:38:24 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2005, 09:21:58 AM »

From a utilitarian standpoint, marriage exists for the sake of the family - and families are the bedrock of civilization.  Marriage does not exist so that society will "recognize our love".  Frankly, it is quite possible to have functional, useful, if pretty unromantic/cold marriage.  Marriage keeps fathers around so they'll look after the fruit of their loins, and ensures in turn that mothers will remain loyal to their husbands, even when warm fuzzy, romantic feelings begin to wain (as inevitably happens - the honeymoon doesn't last forever, and you cannot always count on people to run 100% on virtue 100% of the time.)

"Gay marriage", considering the above, cannot exist.  This is not a comment on the affection (or lack thereof) between two homosexual lovers.  It is simply a recognition of the reality that the very type of relationship they have cannot ever be fruitful, and thus entail those types of obligations.  Rather, the desire for "gay marriage" flows from a total misrepresentation of just what marriage is, a misrepresentation which fundamentally is not the responsibility of homosexuals, but of "normal" or "straight" people.  They are the ones who have reduced marriage to sentimentality; their lack of offspring and even more so, their incredible rates of divorce, are the hard evidence of this.

Whatever society thinks of homosexuals and their inclination, I do not think the push for "gay marriage" would have been possible without the deterioration of the knowledge of just what marriages are (at least in large part) about by mainstream society.

Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2005, 09:28:14 AM »

Nevertheless, in accordance with the separation of Church and State, we should allow gay marriages (every country should....so this isn't an "American" political discussion).
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2005, 11:27:36 AM »

Nevertheless, in accordance with the separation of Church and State, we should allow gay marriages (every country should....so this isn't an "American" political discussion).

But marriage is not a politcal issue, it's a Church issue, a holy institution. The only purpose of marriage in the state at large is to confirm what the Church has already done, and to provide benefits.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2005, 04:44:31 PM »

Nevertheless, in accordance with the separation of Church and State, we should allow gay marriages (every country should....so this isn't an "American" political discussion).

I wouldn't mind that if a vote of the people supported gay marriage.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2005, 07:21:46 PM »

Nevertheless, in accordance with the separation of Church and State, we should allow gay marriages (every country should....so this isn't an "American" political discussion).

"Separation of church and state," as it currently exists in American jurisprudence, is an aberration of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Contrary to what it is currently taken to mean, the Establishment Clause was primarily intended to prevent the establishment of a national church and to protect the religious conscience and exercise of the people. It was not, in any way, intended to drive religious morality out of public policy or laws, and even a cursory study of American history shows that plainly. To allow gay marriage is the moral and spiritual equivalent of cultural suicide. We have beaten ourselves horribly over the past fifty years (no-fault divorce, the "sexual revolution," abortion, normalizing extremely violent behavior, etc), but this will be the final blow. Any ban on homosexual marriage, whether at the state or federal level, is perfectly consistent with the Constitution and with our cultural history.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2005, 08:22:35 PM »

I don't understand why it shouldn't be a matter of states' rights.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2005, 08:24:54 PM »

I just love these discussions about church/state separation and so-called gay marriage...
The State can compel me to buy a DOG license for my CAT...but it's still a cat.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2005, 09:01:40 PM »

I don't understand why it shouldn't be a matter of states' rights.

Peace.

Historically, questions of marriage have been dealt with exclusively by each individual state. The problem we're faced with now is one of homosexual activists going to a state (like Massachusetts) which permits them to "marry," then returning to their home state and requiring them to recognize it under the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution. In theory you are correct, and as a Constitutional conservative, I am content to see this issue handled at the state level, but that just isn't realistic with this issue.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2005, 11:47:18 PM »

If the people of an individual state support same-sex marriage, it should be allowed. The Projection of Marriage Act prevents other states from having to recognize another state's gay marriage.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Shankar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not Sure Yet
Posts: 39


« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2005, 12:35:42 AM »

If the people of an individual state support same-sex marriage, it should be allowed. The Projection of Marriage Act prevents other states from having to recognize another state's gay marriage.

Peace.

Has the Defense of Marriage Act ever been brought to the Supreme Court?
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2005, 12:48:04 AM »

Has the Defense of Marriage Act ever been brought to the Supreme Court?

I plead the fifth.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Shankar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not Sure Yet
Posts: 39


« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2005, 01:17:28 AM »

I plead the fifth.

Peace.

Alright, I wasn't sure.  I was wondering, because if it hasn't already, I'm sure it will end up at the Supreme Court sooner or later.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2005, 01:31:40 AM »

I honestly have no idea.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2005, 01:41:27 AM »

Christ is Among Us!
   Nations must give an account to God even as individuals do. Therefore I believe it is incumbent upon belivers to strive for a nation whose laws reflect what pleases God. Israel and Judah were judged and overthrown because they made "anything goes" legal and so will any other nation be judged. The laws of the land are- or should be- a tutor in the same sense that the law of the Old Testament was a tutor: in order to teach righteousness. People will always break the law whether it is God's or man's but if there are two rings of defence then some people who are "on the edge" will opt for the right choice simply because it is "against the law". So I would support any legislation making (or keeping) homosexual marriage illegal simply because the civil law, when it reiterates God's law, doubly reinforces the idea that homosexuality itself is wrong. To put this to another controversial case: the fallacious argument of "back alley" abortions aside: if abortion were illegal by civil law as it is by God's law, how many fewer abortions would there be simply because the law of the land said you can't do it. But now since it is legal, we have exceeded Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews at least eight-fold. The separation of Church and State (despite the Church's faults- which are only exceeded by the secular State's) is a Secular humanist ideal. In the Last Judgement we will be judged by God's ideal: EVERYTHING in our lives, whether as an individual or a society must reflect the two greatest commandments...........
In Christ,
Rd. David
(P.S. As a Texan- I am proud of our State's vote on this issue this week!)
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2005, 01:55:57 AM »

  I think what most of those wanting to be able to have a homosexual "marriage" want is to have the perks that come with it.  I think the simple solution is to start taking away the perks for being married.  However, I ALSO think that marriage and civil union are two different concepts that have been, somehow, bound together in American culture because of its secular nature.  I know you guys agree that you can truely be married without the state recongnizing it and you can have a justice of the peace "marry" you, but the church will not recongize it as a marriage.
   One thing that I do think needs changed is that, a gay individual should be allowed to adopt children just as easily as a straight couple can.  But I guess that is another thread.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2005, 02:27:57 AM »

ÂÂ  I think what most of those wanting to be able to have a homosexual "marriage" want is to have the perks that come with it.ÂÂ  I think the simple solution is to start taking away the perks for being married.ÂÂ

This is an interesting idea and has the immediate value of taking away an incentive for the gay marriage activists to pursue their agenda. But back to my "law as tutor idea": the State has not only a duty to discourage what is wrong, but to encourage what is right. So incentives for marriage are a good idea IMO.

 ÃƒÆ’‚ One thing that I do think needs changed is that, a gay individual should be allowed to adopt children just as easily as a straight couple can.  But I guess that is another thread.


I didn't understand this point, I think- to adopt a child (a good thing) should be just as easy for a gay individual (two bad points: one a person who identifies himself by what Christianity would consider perversion and an individual rather than a father AND mother [not necessarily morally bad but certainly lacking in the fullness of family life for a child] as it is easy for a straight couple (two good points: a two-parent household with a union blessed by God). I think, looking at it from the standpoint of what is best for the adopted child as regards both his/ her soul and normal developement, it should be MUCH easier for the straight couple to adopt than for a gay individual.
   Of course, I am assuming that both the straight couple and the gay individual are both "great parent material" from the purely natural perspective. If the couple has  some serious impediment to being good parents they should recieve no more consideration than the good gay individual. The child should be adopted to neither home. God will provide the right parents at the right time rather than to adopt the child out simply for the sake of being adopted.
In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2005, 10:45:41 AM »

Since so many people gave me a predictably fundamentalist response, I shall give a "general" retort.  Firstly, if the Constitution told me to kill my wife or shoot myself in the head, I wouldn't do it.  So many people will argue on the mere authority of the Constitution, as if it is somehow axiomatic that a document that was written over 200 years ago should be metaphysically or ethically binding.  To legislate against homosexuality PLAINLY endorses a Judaeo-Christian-Mohammedan weltanschauung.  There are no two ways about it.  And this is just as arbitrary as if we passed a law requiring everyone to sacrifice to an idol of Ganesh....and just as just.  And yet the Religious "Right" (I cringe at this oxymoron) will whine and cry at the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.  How inconsistent and hypocritical!  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Also, it makes me laugh how Conservatives will insist on legislating morality, but will be the first to scream when we delve into fiscal/social liberality.  How can you do one and not the other, yet call it consistent?  In accordance with my Libertarian beliefs, I might not support a fiscally liberal economic system, but I at least admit that it is consistent if applied with a morally conservative system.

Also....I agree that peoples will be judged by their sinfulness or righteousness.  But this is based on the hearts of people.  It is not based on whether or not we did/didn't shove some particular religious outlook down people's throats via legistlature.  And to suppose that God deals with humanity in geographical accordance with our own man-made political boundaries is simply ridiculous.

I furthermore don't believe that any married couple should receive government benefits.....homosexual OR heterosexual.

Now forgive my "political" tangent....I'm off to Church Lips Sealed
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2005, 11:42:19 PM »

Quote
Since so many people gave me a predictably fundamentalist response, I shall give a "general" retort.  Firstly, if the Constitution told me to kill my wife or shoot myself in the head, I wouldn't do it.  So many people will argue on the mere authority of the Constitution, as if it is somehow axiomatic that a document that was written over 200 years ago should be metaphysically or ethically binding.  To legislate against homosexuality PLAINLY endorses a Judaeo-Christian-Mohammedan weltanschauung.  There are no two ways about it.  And this is just as arbitrary as if we passed a law requiring everyone to sacrifice to an idol of Ganesh....and just as just.  And yet the Religious "Right" (I cringe at this oxymoron) will whine and cry at the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.  How inconsistent and hypocritical!  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Also, it makes me laugh how Conservatives will insist on legislating morality, but will be the first to scream when we delve into fiscal/social liberality.  How can you do one and not the other, yet call it consistent?  In accordance with my Libertarian beliefs, I might not support a fiscally liberal economic system, but I at least admit that it is consistent if applied with a morally conservative system.

OK....you basically said a whole lota nothin'.... Roll Eyes Dam God & those Israelites for legislating against the public sin of 'homosexuality' also way back then...they had no right shoving their religious values down the throats of what was deemed perfectly normal by the 'enlightened' ones of their time & ours also. A typical response we here so much from those that know what's best. What's next, maybe we can extol the virtues of transvestitism & the shaft they are getting from society also. Sounds perfectly normal to me.

I'll just add that I doubt we will be seeing anymore gay wedding cake soon. It's up for ballot next election in about 12 states, I'm sure the people by 70% or more will say 'no' just like they did accross numerous states last election, but to you they must be all religious fundamentalist who hate gays... Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: November 13, 2005, 11:48:14 PM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2005, 12:36:23 AM »

Christ is Among Us!
   I apologize Beavis if I touched a nerve there- I once thought of the relationship between Church and State in terms similar to the positions you enunciated. But giving it a good deal of thought and prayer I have come to the conviction that there really is a proper Orthodox Christian political science and the idea of symphonia between Church and State, best exemplified in the Orthodox Monarchy, really isn't the simplistic balderdash that we in the west were raised to believe. Much of what we feel about the historical Orthodox Christian model we view through the secular humanist values of the Enlightenment (a real misnomer for the period from a patristic perspective). Once we are to get past that and look at the past without our hyper-skeptical defense mechanisms there is a lot of sense to the symphonia of powers even if it was in the hands of fallible men. No matter how "fair" we try to make a state, it WILL be guided by a set of values. Why is it so insane to have that set of values based on the Truth? Is it really better to base society on what is not true or God-pleasing? And if that position is ridiculous your quarrel is not with me because I did not originate it- that cooperation of Church and State is well grounded in both Scripture and Tradition and has been held by very many Fathers and Saints throughout the ages.
In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2005, 02:40:46 AM »

What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is no one's business but their's and God's.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2005, 08:55:14 AM »

Why is it so insane to have that set of values based on the Truth?

That's just it.  Every religion will insist that theirs is the Truth (even though Orthodox Christianity is, in a real, objective sense the Truth...though that's beside the point).  And when you live in a society which is as religiously diverse as ours, the situation is rendered all the more acute.  How can we expect everybody to abide by what not everybody agrees to?  And where do you draw the line?  Do we outlaw masturbation?  Do we outlaw eating a hamburger during Lent?  And do we legislate "general" (though there is no such thing.....contra ultra-ecumenism) Christianity or do we legislate Orthodox Christianity?  And then do we legislate Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy?  If Eastern Orthodoxy, then should we imprison people for being "monophysites"?  Do we legislate mainstream E.O. or non-calendarist E.O.?  ROCOR or ROAC?
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2005, 09:49:59 AM »

Christ is Among Us!

   First off, I apologize if I have taken this thread off on a tangent: but I think the issue of the cooperation between Church and State is vitally connected to the same sex marriage issue. If the originator of this thread would rather I have this discussion moved elsewhere I could go on another thread.
   To answer ozgeorge's point: Yes very definitely what two consenting adults do in thier bedroom is between them and God. Sypmphonia between the powers does not mean legislating people's private morality in the bedroom. It does mean that when homosexual activists try to make the whole society their bedroom and bring their private behavior public through the Trojan horse of acceptance and tolerance that a Christian society (and we were founded as a Christian society rather than a secular one) needs to show its disapproval of that lifestyle as a moral principle. When homosexual activists make their private behavior (where they are free to corrupt themselves) into a public "good" through gay marriage, forcing private groups like the Scouts to employ them, corrupting our children into believing this is a good lifestyle choice in the PUBLIC school system, trying to have biblical teachings on homosexuality outlawed as hate speech, etc. THEN a Christian society has every right in self-defence to legislate against those things.
   To answer Beavis: Yes, every religion does insist it is the Truth. Yes, ours really is. Because we are convinced ours is we must act on that belief and not be enfeebled because others have it wrong.
   This is a diverse society but most of your objections dealt either with legislation to outlaw private moral behavior (a point answered above) or legislating dogma (something we are not discussing). The types of things the Christians in this country seriously discuss legislating are those things that the majority religions of our country all have in common. As diverse as our doctrinal systems are, our morality is surprisingly close. And these are the things that make for a healthy public society.
In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2005, 09:59:48 AM »



ÂÂ   trying to have biblical teachings on homosexuality outlawed as hate speech, etc.

I definitely agree that that is an outcry.  The "freedom" of A should never impinge on the freedom of B.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2005, 10:07:20 AM »

Nacho: are you a "dixie-crat?  You seem to be a) fiscally liberal, b) culturally conservative.  This means you score on the "south" end of the political diamond Wink
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2005, 01:31:56 PM »

  ÃƒÆ’‚ First off, I apologize if I have taken this thread off on a tangent: but I think the issue of the cooperation between Church and State is vitally connected to the same sex marriage issue. If the originator of this thread would rather I have this discussion moved elsewhere I could go on another thread.

Technically, I think most of you here are in violation of the forum rules against political discussion.  The point of this thread was for commentary/criticism of Mathew777's article/editorial, so may try to keep the discussion address to his article at least?
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2005, 02:01:00 PM »

Christ is Among Us!
  I apologize if I misunderstood the parameters of this debate but each of Matthew's four points did reference politics:
 1. mentions equal and civil rights
 2. mentions Constitutional rights
 3. mentions political correctness and tax-payer supported agencies
 4. mentions State law, Federal tax breaks and entitlement programs.

 How can we discuss this article intelligently without reflecting on the interplay between Church and State?  Were the scientific and social points reallly the ones being offered for discussion?

  I am just a newbie to this forum so perhaps I misunderstood what was going on....

In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2005, 03:57:13 PM »

Isn't it a disgrace that we've simply come to this point, where there is deliberation over an abomination of this sort?ÂÂ  This is but another attack on that which is holy and sacred, and for what?ÂÂ  The convenience of a few loonies?ÂÂ  I say!ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: November 14, 2005, 04:00:48 PM by SaintShenouti » Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2005, 04:27:36 PM »

Quote
Nacho: are you a "dixie-crat?  You seem to be a) fiscally liberal, b) culturally conservative.  This means you score on the "south" end of the political diamond Wink

Yes Sir!!!!   Smiley
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2005, 04:30:21 PM »

That's cool.  I used to be one of those.  I've run full-circle.  I went from being fiscally and culturally conservative.....to fiscally liberal and culturally conservative.....to fiscally liberal and culturally liberal.....and now fiscally conservative and culturally liberal Cheesy
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2005, 09:00:40 PM »

I`ve been staying out of this debate but I can`t take it any longer.
  To all those so called cultural liberals of the Orthodox faith ask yourself one simple question:
Would ANY of our holy fathers support gay marrage?
   "We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
  Does anyone disagree that to be Orthodox and to support gay marrage are diametrically opposed?
Or did I miss something that some Saint said upholding the right of sodomites to engage in one of the seven sacraments of the church?
Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2005, 09:23:02 PM »

You're right.ÂÂ  Gay marriage and the Church ARE diametrically opposed.ÂÂ  But so is masturbation and the Church.ÂÂ  So is eating a hamburger during Lent and the Church.ÂÂ  So is "MURDER IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY" and the Church.ÂÂ  So is kissing on a first date and the Church.ÂÂ  So is exploiting the poor and the Church.ÂÂ  So is destroying God's created earth and the Church.ÂÂ  So is wasting your money on gas-guzzling SUV's and the Church.ÂÂ  So is dressing immodestly and the Church.ÂÂ  So is drinking Jim Beam when you're only 18 and the Church (ahem....Silouan?).ÂÂ  Why not at least be consistent and outlaw ALL these things?....oh wait, that last one IS.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2005, 09:24:14 PM by Beavis » Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2005, 09:46:17 PM »

Fine Beavis, let's BE consistent- outlaw them all.  Happy now?

Mo's got my vote here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2005, 09:54:02 PM »

I'm gonna have to go with Mo, too.  (Ooh, that rhymed Grin)  Just because we do some (or even many) things wrong doesn't mean that we need to condone the ones that we haven't fallen into yet.  That's the exact opposite of the direction we should be going.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2005, 09:54:36 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=7531.msg98556#msg98556 date=1132019177]
 outlaw them all.ÂÂ  Happy now?

 
[/quote]

Yes Grin.....but this would include a socialist economic policy.  And all you need to do is look at France (pfffffff! Roll Eyes) to see where this has gotten us.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2005, 10:04:24 PM »

Beavis:
 ÃƒÆ’‚ You digress. Are you really going compare eating a hamberger during lent to homosexuality?
Typical weak arguments from the left side of the political spectrum. Are you Christian? Orthodox?
 I fail to see how one can separate Orthodoxy from politics. I am not condemning gay people . I am condemning gay marriage. Legalized homosexual marriage is nothing less than institutionalized sodomy.
Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2005, 11:46:15 PM »

Christ is Among Us!
  I apologize if I misunderstood the parameters of this debate but each of Matthew's four points did reference politics:
 1. mentions equal and civil rights
 2. mentions Constitutional rights
 3. mentions political correctness and tax-payer supported agencies
 4. mentions State law, Federal tax breaks and entitlement programs.

 How can we discuss this article intelligently without reflecting on the interplay between Church and State?  Were the scientific and social points reallly the ones being offered for discussion?

  I am just a newbie to this forum so perhaps I misunderstood what was going on....

In Christ,
Rd. David

David,
There are forum rules to follow.  I think this is the 3rth or 4th opinion article Mathew777 has written.  He has written it for an intended audience - just like trying to make an argument for a class paper.  We should be addressing his paper as to organization, content and approach taken with the content.  This is not supposed to be a thread to debate one another.  He may hear conflicting viewpoints, but that is for him to decide.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2005, 02:22:39 AM »

ÂÂ  Does anyone disagree that to be Orthodox and to support gay marrage are diametrically opposed?
Or did I miss something that some Saint said upholding the right of sodomites to engage in one of the seven sacraments of the church?

Civil marriage is not one of the sacraments of the Church, so I can't see the problem.
An Orthodox Christian is in the world, but not of the world.
No Orthodox Christian would ever bow down to an idol, nor eat eat food offered to them, nor worship a man as a god, yet n the first centuries of the Church, the law of the state required these.
Yet the Church, in it's first centuries managed to spread the Gospel throughout the empire.
Today, we want to make the laws of the Church the State law, and not only is there mass apostasy, we haven't managed to bring a single nation to Christianity in a thousand years.
Perhaps it is because we are trying to be chilianists and bring "heaven on earth" by imposing christianity under penalty of imprisonment.
There is absolutely no difference between imposing sharia law on the state and christianity on the state. Who can blame anyone for rejecting Christ when faced with Christian "sharia law"?
But what is the supposed "christian" response to anyone who says that you can't impose Christianity and baptise at the edge of the sword like Chalamagne did?: "You are a bleeding heart, leftist, liberal...blah, blah, blah...."
Christianity lived in the same countries and cities as idolatry, prostitution, adultery, murder, oppression, and many other things diametrically opposed to it for centuries. How many of our Saints were former murderers. theives, prostitutes, idolaters, sorcerers etc?
Don't accuse someone of not being a "proper" Orthodox Christian because he does not support a chilianist view of imposing Christian law on the State.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2005, 04:21:21 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2005, 06:15:59 AM »

Quote
So is eating a hamburger during Lent and the Church....So is drinking Jim Beam when you're only 18 and the Church (ahem....Silouan?). 

Eating an hamburger during lent is not always wrong.  Plenty of people have valid reasons to have the rules of the fast loosened - precisely why the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

As for drinking... there is nothing wrong with drinking at age 18 in and of itself.  But the wrongness of it would be violating a law of the state I live in.  Which at the end of the day really doesn't even compare to the gravity of homosexuality. 
Logged
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2005, 09:37:29 AM »

Quote
How many of our Saints were former murderers. theives, prostitutes, idolaters, sorcerers etc?

and homosexuals. I don't like the word former, but celibate.

Quote
Don't accuse someone of not being a "proper" Orthodox Christian because he does not support a chilianist view of imposing Christian law on the State.

very well said!
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2005, 01:30:31 PM »

"Don't accuse someone of not being a "proper" Orthodox Christian because he does not support a chilianist view of imposing Christian law on the State."

Yes, and it's also better not to assume that Orthodox who favor the traditional historical symphonia between Church and State have fascist-like agendas............

The issue on the table with Matthew's original post seems to be whether same-sex unions should be legal. Isn't the point of a Democracy that the public can decide public policies through voting? And if the majority consistently vote to not allow this change in the social-moral fabric of our nation then where is the injustice in that? It is being decided according to manner everything is decided under this form of government.
When Abraham and Lot parted ways and Lot chose to dwell in Sodom he "voted" to in a society of extreme depravity even though he himself maintained his individual righteousness. But for his choice he was criticized by the Fathers. Since this issue has come up for a vote we too have a choice whether we wish to live in a righteous God-fearing society or to turn our country, guided from the beginning with a bedrock of Judeo-Christian values, into a modern-day Sodom by giving social and legal sanction to, well, sodomites.
This does not mean we outlaw what homosexuals do in their own homes and we do not hunt them down in a Christian society but because we want the society at large to be as wholesome as possible for ourselves and our children we conserve what it already is and always has been and stand against the rising tide of moral decay in the manner prescribed by our chosen government: a Democratic Republic.
The Christians of the first three centuries lived under the oppression of an autocratic pagan emperor and were staunch in their refusal to get involved in the system laced as it was with idolatry. When the Empire became Christian they became very involved and worked out the traditional form of Orthodox Christian government. They sought to "convert" every aspect of the culture. Sometimes they fell far short of the ideals they professed (who among us doesn't). But they were right to try. We were born into a generic Judeo-Christian Democratic Republic and should do everything we can to "convert" the culture simply because Democracy only works when the majority of the people care to vote for what is important to them. Being given the opportunity to vote and influence society, just as Lot was given a "vote" as to what society he would live in, are we really to vote in favor of Sodom due to a post-Enlightenment understanding of tolerance?
We should have tolerance and compassion for homosexuals but to lower society's moral standards by expanding what it accepts in this way seems to me to be a misguided form of tolerance.
In Christ,
Rd. David

Logged
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2005, 04:27:20 PM »

One last note before I end my postings in this thread, as it is obvious that I won't change any stubborn minds here: our founding fathers were not Christians, but FREEMASONS

Have a nice day Grin
« Last Edit: November 15, 2005, 04:29:07 PM by Beavis » Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2005, 04:39:10 PM »

Beavis:

And your point is ?
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2005, 05:33:41 PM »

Yes, and it's also better not to assume that Orthodox who favor the traditional historical symphonia between Church and State have fascist-like agendas............
I don't think I did, did I?

Isn't the point of a Democracy that the public can decide public policies through voting?
Absolutely

And if the majority consistently vote to not allow this change in the social-moral fabric of our nation then where is the injustice in that?
I don't think I said there was any injustice in that? By the same token, you must accept that there is nothing wrong with the fact that "democracy" has legalized same sex unions in California, Oregon, New Mexico, Massachussets and Vermont, but does this make it moral? Democracy determines legality, not morality.

It is being decided according to manner everything is decided under this form of government.
True. But if we use voting to determine morality, then things are moral in some States and not in others. And if this is how we are going to determine what is or isn't a sin, then Salvation has just become another reality program.
My whole point is that you can't legislate Christian morality- that is not the function of the Law of the State.

we wish to live in a righteous God-fearing society or to turn our country, guided from the beginning with a bedrock of Judeo-Christian values,
From which beginning? The actual beginning with the Native Americans, or the second "beginning" with the "Pilgrims"?

into a modern-day Sodom by giving social and legal sanction to, well, sodomites.
What, really, is a "Sodomite"? I know it is understood as an analogy for abhorrent sin, but was the sin of Sodom understood by any of the Fathers to be homosexuality? And in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, what does "righteous Lot" whom God spared from Sodom do after fleeing to Zoar? He gets drunk and commits incest with his own daughters....I suppose you'll say that at least he wasn't homosexual.....

we want the society at large to be as wholesome as possible for ourselves and our children we conserve what it already is and always has been and stand against the rising tide of moral decay in the manner prescribed by our chosen government: a Democratic Republic.
Firstly, if you're going to use the democratic voting process to determine morality, you're in trouble.
Secondly, if you don't want your society to fall into the moral decay of Sodom and Gomorrah, then why not take the advice which scripture actually gives to such societies:
"Hear the word of the LORD,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ you rulers of Sodom;
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ listen to the law of our God,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ you people of Gomorrah! .....

 wash and make yourselves clean.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Take your evil deeds
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ out of my sight!
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Stop doing wrong,

ÂÂ  learn to do right!
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Seek justice,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ encourage the oppressed.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Defend the cause of the fatherless,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ plead the case of the widow.
"

Isaiah 1:10-17



Funny, isn't it.....Only two hundred years ago, usury was considered a serious sin, and today it is the basis of our economy. How fickle we are when it comes to morality in our societies.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2005, 06:39:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2005, 05:34:31 PM »

Quote
One last note before I end my postings in this thread, as it is obvious that I won't change any stubborn minds here: our founding fathers were not Christians, but FREEMASONS

Actually, who are you referring to with the phrase "founding fathers"? The Apostles?
Logged

Tags: homosexuality 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 72 queries.