OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: RobS on June 11, 2018, 11:06:53 PM

Title: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RobS on June 11, 2018, 11:06:53 PM
Quote
Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married, and so in a positive way they can fulfil their erotic desire with the Church’s blessing through the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony. But homosexuals have no such option. In the words of Vasileios Thermos, “A homosexual subject is called to lead a celibate life without feeling a vocation for it.” Are we right to impose this heavy burden on the homosexual?

Quote
A second anomaly is to be found in the way homosexuals are commonly treated in the sacrament of confession. All of us recognize that there is an important distinction to be made between those homosexuals who engage in casual encounters, seeking out in some “gay” bar a partner for a single night; and on the other hand, those homosexuals who are committed to a permanent relationship, faithful and monogamous, in which deep love is involved. Surely no Christian is in favour of sexual promiscuity.

What happens, by contrast, to the faithful and monogamous homosexual? Perhaps the priest says in confession, “Are you willing to give up your homosexual relationship?” The penitent may answer, “I cannot do that.” The priest may rejoin, “You can continue to share a common life, marked by mutual affection; but will you abstain from further sexual activity?” The other may well reply, “I am not yet ready to undertake that.” (Yet I have known homosexuals who have indeed transformed their relationship in this way.)

The priest, faced with this refusal, may well feel that he cannot bless the penitent to receive the sacrament. Now here certainly is a paradox. The homosexual committed to a stable and loving relationship is treated more harshly than the homosexual who is casual and promiscuous, and who is seeking not true love but passing pleasure. Something has gone wrong here.

Quote
Why do we put so great an emphasis upon genital sex? Why do we seek to enquire what adult persons of the same sex are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms? Trying to gaze through the keyhole is never a dignified posture. What harm are they doing to others? (“Ah!” it will be said, “they are doing harm to themselves.”) I am not suggesting here that we should bluntly set aside the traditional Orthodox teaching, but we do need to enquire more rigorously into the reasons that lie behind it.

Quote
In the words of Brandon Gallaher, “To ascertain the truth we must experiment.” And as Vasileios Thermos maintains, “Our theological treasury . . . is waiting to be discovered.” Let us not as Orthodox be merely defensive and reactive, “running after the facts,” as he puts it; but let us listen to one another with creative courage, with mutual respect and, more than that, with (in his own words again) “loving compassion.” Let us acknowledge, moreover, the variety of paths that God calls us human beings to follow.

Quotes from the Metropolitan.

Article here:

Kallistos Ware Comes Out for Homosexual “Marriage”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2018/06/kallistos-ware-comes-out-for-homosexual-marriage/
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 11, 2018, 11:26:45 PM
Ooooo, somebody bout to get "farewelled."


But where will this leave all the pop Orthodox "books for new converts" lists?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 11, 2018, 11:41:45 PM
It's possible to agree with everything Met. Ware is quoted as having written above without believing that this means the Church should offer weddings to same-sex couples.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Asteriktos on June 11, 2018, 11:47:32 PM
And to give some more quotes from the original source text (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d0df1ee4b036ef1e44b144/t/5b199e5f03ce64a767c66c7f/1528405608178/%2313%3A14+Foreword.pdf)...

Quote
First, until recent times, Orthodox thinkers did not make use of the concept of sexual orientation, as this is understood in contemporary psychology. More precisely, they assumed that there is only one orientation, and that is heterosexual. They considered that persons of homosexual inclination were such because of personal choice and were therefore willfully wicked. Nowadays Orthodox writers would normally prefer to make a distinction between orientation and action. Homosexual orientation, we would say, is indeed contrary to God’s plan for humankind, being one of the consequences of the fall (incidentally, I am surprised that more is not said about the fall in the course of this issue of The Wheel). But homosexual men and women are not personally guilty of their orientation, because this is not something they have chosen; they only become guilty if by deliberate choice they decide to live out this orientation in their actions. They can choose to be celibate.

Quote
The Orthodox tradition teaches clearly that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are not permitted.

So...  maybe go read the original article before you get the pitchforks out?

EDIT--the last comment isn't directed at any of the above posters, but moreso those who will respond like many others have to the article in the OP
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: NicholasMyra on June 11, 2018, 11:56:53 PM
I mean, the original url should have been a tipoff.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 11, 2018, 11:57:35 PM
No, you're right Asteriktos, I didn't read it lol- because I don't really care all that much.

He'll get roasted no matter what he said, because some people are like that. If actual change on this issue ever comes, it won't be in my lifetime or my hypothetical grandkids's so I'm "all like whatevs."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Asteriktos on June 12, 2018, 12:11:59 AM
Fwiw, I agree that change is slow with such things, but I think we can see it already happening. The part about "Nowadays Orthodox writers would normally prefer to make a distinction between orientation and action"?? That kind of thing was unheard of a couple generations ago. Someone would have probably punched you in the nose for saying such a thing in your local parish c. 1955. Probably still would be the reaction in some parts of the world. Yet Met. Kallistos can say what he said without much exaggeration or false optimism. For a concrete example, consider how the homosexuality of Fr. Seraphim Rose has been treated.

"Was Fr. Seraphim gay?"
1985: Boy ima bout to take you out back and beat the...
1995: Of course not. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. And triple-yucky. Stop asking questions that make me uncomfortable.
2005: Um. No. Probably not. It's wrong, ok? How bout them Lakers?
2015: Who cares? If he was, he left it behind. He strove to lead a holy life, that's what matters.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 12, 2018, 12:13:33 AM
Critiques of the Orthodox approach to homosexuality and other issues never come right out and say it. That's too bold, and would never catch. Instead, they take an approach that becomes very easy to pick up on.

1. Acknowledge the teaching of the Church, explicitly or implicitly.

2. Implicitly accuse what has always been the Church's pastoral approach to same-sex relations and other such sins as being wrong.

3. Ask a bunch of loaded questions. Do not answer them. There's no need, because the intended audience already has in their heads.

4. Lead everyone to the conclusion that x (in this case, a committed same-sex relationship) is OK, because y (same-sex promiscuity) is "worse" (somehow).



Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 12, 2018, 03:55:22 AM
Fwiw, I agree that change is slow with such things, but I think we can see it already happening. The part about "Nowadays Orthodox writers would normally prefer to make a distinction between orientation and action"?? That kind of thing was unheard of a couple generations ago. Someone would have probably punched you in the nose for saying such a thing in your local parish c. 1955. Probably still would be the reaction in some parts of the world. Yet Met. Kallistos can say what he said without much exaggeration or false optimism. For a concrete example, consider how the homosexuality of Fr. Seraphim Rose has been treated.

"Was Fr. Seraphim gay?"
1985: Boy ima bout to take you out back and beat the...
1995: Of course not. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. And triple-yucky. Stop asking questions that make me uncomfortable.
2005: Um. No. Probably not. It's wrong, ok? How bout them Lakers?
2015: Who cares? If he was, he left it behind. He strove to lead a holy life, that's what matters.

Good points.

In before 15,000 slippery slope arguments about pedophilia/bestiality/polygamy/incest/whatever.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 12, 2018, 05:24:51 AM
Nothing particularly wrong with those quotes. Most of the churchy scandals are about how things are said instead of what is being said. This is one of those instances. He is just being polite.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 12, 2018, 07:15:42 AM
Disapointed.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Opus118 on June 12, 2018, 11:32:44 AM
Critiques of the Orthodox approach to homosexuality and other issues never come right out and say it. That's too bold, and would never catch. Instead, they take an approach that becomes very easy to pick up on.

1. Acknowledge the teaching of the Church, explicitly or implicitly.

2. Implicitly accuse what has always been the Church's pastoral approach to same-sex relations and other such sins as being wrong.

3. Ask a bunch of loaded questions. Do not answer them. There's no need, because the intended audience already has in their heads.

4. Lead everyone to the conclusion that x (in this case, a committed same-sex relationship) is OK, because y (same-sex promiscuity) is "worse" (somehow).
Rather than write generalities with no citations, why not put it into context with the editorial by Father Andrew Louth, it will make for a better learning experience. He was the editor for this two volume monogram and therefore responsible.
I glanced through it. I have not time to read it carefully right now.

https://www.wheeljournal.com/s/1314-Being-Human.pdf

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 12, 2018, 01:55:16 PM
I love it how the ContinuingOrthodoxTM
are going crazy over this. So much fun.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Agabus on June 12, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
ContinuingOrthodoxTM

Perfect.

*******

This is not unlike Jim Martin's book, which quotes the RC catechism in full and then says, "There's no way to address all of this in a way that makes everyone happy, and we can't change Church teaching, but here are a few areas where we can do better, like treating people like human persons..."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 12, 2018, 02:46:40 PM
I love it how the ContinuingOrthodoxTM
are going crazy over this. So much fun.


I love your signature. Where is it from?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Iconodule on June 12, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
I love it how the ContinuingOrthodoxTM
are going crazy over this. So much fun.


I love your signature. Where is it from?

Elder Pasadi, who else?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 12, 2018, 02:54:31 PM
I love it how the ContinuingOrthodoxTM
are going crazy over this. So much fun.


I love your signature. Where is it from?

Elder Pasadi, who else?

May God grant him many years.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RobS on June 12, 2018, 05:34:09 PM
This is not unlike Jim Martin's book, which quotes the RC catechism in full and then says, "There's no way to address all of this in a way that makes everyone happy, and we can't change Church teaching, but here are a few areas where we can do better, like treating people like human persons..."
LOL
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 12, 2018, 07:24:44 PM
I am amazed at how well the metropolitan can argue from sentimentalism!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 12, 2018, 08:15:18 PM
I am amazed at how well the metropolitan can argue from sentimentalism!
and yet you could still teach him a thing or two about sentimentalism.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 12, 2018, 10:39:24 PM
I am amazed at how well the metropolitan can argue from sentimentalism!
and yet you could still teach him a thing or two about sentimentalism.
Nah, make it three!  It takes one to know one, you know?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 12, 2018, 10:48:45 PM
So another gay kid kills himself. Can't make a holiness omelet without breaking a few eggs, amirite? Let's not be so sentimental!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 12, 2018, 11:40:01 PM
Let's all take a deep breath and calm down...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tallitot on June 13, 2018, 12:03:06 AM
IBTL
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 13, 2018, 03:26:00 AM
So another gay kid kills himself. Can't make a holiness omelet without breaking a few eggs, amirite? Let's not be so sentimental!

Yes a gay kills himself, so do so-called Christians, straight people, the depressed, the SJW types, Conservatives, liberals, etc.

What exactly do folks like you want, Orthodoxy (and Christ in particular) to conform to you, or you to Confirm to Christ, and his Church traditions, that lasted for 2,000 years.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 13, 2018, 03:27:16 AM
I am amazed at how well the metropolitan can argue from sentimentalism!
and yet you could still teach him a thing or two about sentimentalism.

Says the one who quit the Church over homosexual rights,  and alleged corruption, you expected the Romanian Church to conform to your views?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 05:13:54 AM
So another gay kid kills himself. Can't make a holiness omelet without breaking a few eggs, amirite? Let's not be so sentimental!

Yes a gay kills himself, so do so-called Christians, straight people, the depressed, the SJW types, Conservatives, liberals, etc.

Kills himself after cracking under the strain of trying to beat his gayness out of himself (almost certainly an impossible task) from a Church that tells him that he'll go to Hell if He doesn't (or if he didn't get lucky enough to draw the "gift of celibacy" card from the deck of life). But of course you don't give a crap since at least it means no more yucky buttsex, right?

What exactly do folks like you want, Orthodoxy (and Christ in particular) to conform to you, or you to Confirm to Christ, and his Church traditions, that lasted for 2,000 years.

Christ is already on the side of morality. I'm just not at all sure that the savage cruelty of the anti-gay program is in any way moral. I guess we'll all see who's correct in God's good time, though. In the meantime, I don't think I could ever in good conscience recommend Orthodoxy to a gay person. Shame, that.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 13, 2018, 07:54:11 AM
I really doubt that gay people commit suicide because the orthodox church or any church says what is being saying in the last 2k years, that homossexuality is a sin and degenerate form of sexuality.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Asteriktos on June 13, 2018, 09:20:13 AM
I really doubt that gay people commit suicide because the orthodox church or any church says what is being saying in the last 2k years, that homossexuality is a sin and degenerate form of sexuality.

They might if they also believe that Orthodoxy is the "ark of truth" "the faith that founded the universe" etc. etc.  Not everyone can compartmentalize away such problems. If it's rare then I'd suggest that a lot of that has to do with most people either 1) not being fully invested as the be-all end-all of their lives, and so not being as bothered by contradictions between traditional teachings and their own conduct, or 2) being completely oblivious to all the moral stances the Church has traditionally taken. Consider the now-common refrain that the Church "has never stuck its nose in the bedroom of married couples." That's demonstrably false, but the people saying it don't realise that, and if they were informed and corrected it likely still wouldn't bother them much. Most of us are like the rich young man--we want to be happy with what we are already doing, and don't really want to hear that we have a lot more to do than we thought.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 13, 2018, 01:14:15 PM
I really doubt that gay people commit suicide because the orthodox church or any church says what is being saying in the last 2k years, that homossexuality is a sin and degenerate form of sexuality.


People commit suicides for their girlfriend leaving them or other silly reasons all the time. That might be irrational but people are mostly speaking irrational.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 13, 2018, 02:59:56 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Asteriktos on June 13, 2018, 03:04:36 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.

Unless they thought they were beyond hope and help and going to hell regardless, in which case it might seem pointless to endure decades more pain just to get the same result.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 13, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.

Yes, they should. But people are, well, people. Just because this or that doctrine is correct and one actually believes in it doesn't one couldn't get depressed or something to that effect over it. People aren't machines after all.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Iconodule on June 13, 2018, 03:08:56 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.

Had to reread this statement a couple times to make sure it wasn't parody. What an astonishing lack of empathy.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 13, 2018, 03:56:05 PM
Why lack of empathy?

Nevertheless, appears to me that you are proposing that the church should start accepting ''monogamic'' homossexual relations and bless them, ignoring Scripture and Tradition, what others sins should the church embrace in order to avoid supposedly suicides (that have other causes, not the church)?

I'm sorry for appearing so cold about the subject, however, everybody fights against sin daily, in what homossexuality is that diferent from adultery? sex adiction? promiscuity?

Sorry for any error, I am not a native english speaker.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 05:29:36 PM
Quote
Nevertheless, appears to me that you are proposing that the church should start accepting ''monogamic'' homossexual relations and bless them, ignoring Scripture and Tradition, what others sins should the church embrace in order to avoid supposedly suicides (that have other causes, not the church)?

Scripture and tradition has nothing at all to say about homosexual monogamy, it didn't exist back then (at least that most people were aware of). Might as well appeal to Scripture and tradition against Heliocentrism (which did actually exist in the ancient world, but I digress). I don't think it's at all clear that prohibitions on gay sex in completely different contexts are therefore prohibitions of it in this context. Maybe it's an "err on the side of not making people's lives more brutalizingly difficult than they absolutely need to be" thing.

The fact that you put monogamy in scare quotes tells me we're about to get a whole lot of stereotyping...

Quote
in what homossexuality is that diferent from adultery? sex adiction? promiscuity?

The latter can all be stopped without cutting your balls off (again, assuming you're not gifted with celibacy. Insert Venn diagram here) and have loving, stable alternatives that happen to be recognized by the Church.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 13, 2018, 05:35:21 PM


Scripture and tradition has nothing at all to say about homosexual monogamy, it didn't exist back then (at least that most people were aware of).

this is the same sort of bullcrap argument that many Orthodox Christians use to justify other things like abortion, for example.  "Jesus didn't say anything about it" or "The Bible doesn't say anything about it".  Jesus didn't say anything either about nuclear war or about wearing pants.  The tradition of the Church though has maintained constantly and consistently that marriage is between man and woman, the mystical union of the Church (woman) and the head of the Church, Christ (man) and that sexual relations are for that particular covenant.  Will people stray and do wrong? Of course, but that's why there is confession and repentance.   
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 05:41:58 PM
The tradition of the Church though has maintained constantly and consistently that marriage is between man and woman, the mystical union of the Church (woman) and the head of the Church, Christ (man) and that sexual relations are for that particular covenant. 

That's exactly the same argument from silence that you accuse me of making. People didn't have the mental furniture to think of marriage (or of gender, for that matter, but that's a whole other debate) as anything but straight until the last 60 years or so, conditions change. You might as well say that nuclear power or women wearing pants or any number of things are condemned by their absence in tradition (or things that did exist then but no Church Father happened to embrace, like Heliocentrism).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 13, 2018, 05:51:53 PM
I read the Metropolitan's article in his voice and it took me two hours to read.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 13, 2018, 07:13:34 PM
That's exactly the same argument from silence that you accuse me of making. People didn't have the mental furniture to think of marriage (or of gender, for that matter, but that's a whole other debate) as anything but straight until the last 60 years or so, conditions change. You might as well say that nuclear power or women wearing pants or any number of things are condemned by their absence in tradition (or things that did exist then but no Church Father happened to embrace, like Heliocentrism).
People also didn’t have the mental furniture to think of a man having a committed monogamous relationship with a cartoon plush pillow or car muffler. What you’re describing isn’t a mental evolution, it’s a devolution.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 07:15:41 PM
That's exactly the same argument from silence that you accuse me of making. People didn't have the mental furniture to think of marriage (or of gender, for that matter, but that's a whole other debate) as anything but straight until the last 60 years or so, conditions change. You might as well say that nuclear power or women wearing pants or any number of things are condemned by their absence in tradition (or things that did exist then but no Church Father happened to embrace, like Heliocentrism).
People also didn’t have the mental furniture to think of a man having a committed monogamous relationship with a cartoon plush pillow or car muffler. What you’re describing isn’t a mental evolution, it’s a devolution.

Whole lot of false equivocation going on here- unless you think homosexuals are somehow less human than heterosexuals?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 13, 2018, 07:16:35 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.
This is the sort of characterization we must avoid—while stills upholding saving Church teaching—if we are to truly minister to the suffering.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 13, 2018, 07:19:41 PM
That's exactly the same argument from silence that you accuse me of making. People didn't have the mental furniture to think of marriage (or of gender, for that matter, but that's a whole other debate) as anything but straight until the last 60 years or so, conditions change. You might as well say that nuclear power or women wearing pants or any number of things are condemned by their absence in tradition (or things that did exist then but no Church Father happened to embrace, like Heliocentrism).
People also didn’t have the mental furniture to think of a man having a committed monogamous relationship with a cartoon plush pillow or car muffler. What you’re describing isn’t a mental evolution, it’s a devolution.

Whole lot of false equivocation going on here- unless you think homosexuals are somehow less human than heterosexuals?
My interior decór must be more spruced-up than yours!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 07:22:50 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.
This is the sort of characterization we must avoid—while stills upholding saving Church teaching—if we are to truly minister to the suffering.

Comparing their relationships to a man humping a pillow is probably not a good tack, either.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 07:23:47 PM
That's exactly the same argument from silence that you accuse me of making. People didn't have the mental furniture to think of marriage (or of gender, for that matter, but that's a whole other debate) as anything but straight until the last 60 years or so, conditions change. You might as well say that nuclear power or women wearing pants or any number of things are condemned by their absence in tradition (or things that did exist then but no Church Father happened to embrace, like Heliocentrism).
People also didn’t have the mental furniture to think of a man having a committed monogamous relationship with a cartoon plush pillow or car muffler. What you’re describing isn’t a mental evolution, it’s a devolution.

Whole lot of false equivocation going on here- unless you think homosexuals are somehow less human than heterosexuals?
My interior decór must be more spruced-up than yours!

If you really can't see how absurd a comparison that is, then I'd say it's made up of furniture found in a dump.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 13, 2018, 07:37:51 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.
This is the sort of characterization we must avoid—while stills upholding saving Church teaching—if we are to truly minister to the suffering.

Comparing their relationships to a man humping a pillow is probably not a good tack, either.
Think a little bit more about the implications of your reasoning, Volnutt. That’s what I’m driving at, not this or that unsanctioned relationship.

There’s all sorts of mental furniture that has been picked up and dropped off at the proverbial Goodwill. Committed incestual relationships, committed erastes/eromenos relationships, etc.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 13, 2018, 08:16:44 PM
I am amazed at how well the metropolitan can argue from sentimentalism!
and yet you could still teach him a thing or two about sentimentalism.

Says the one who quit the Church over homosexual rights,  and alleged corruption, you expected the Romanian Church to conform to your views?
hA! I’ll still get drunk with a few priests and if need be can make arrangements z. They don’t seem to care what I believe.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 08:18:30 PM
Well, the same church that says that homossexuality is deviant and sinful says the same about suicide, so if a gay person really believes in the church's teachings should not commit neither of those sins aforementioned.
This is the sort of characterization we must avoid—while stills upholding saving Church teaching—if we are to truly minister to the suffering.

Comparing their relationships to a man humping a pillow is probably not a good tack, either.
Think a little bit more about the implications of your reasoning, Volnutt. That’s what I’m driving at, not this or that unsanctioned relationship.

There’s all sorts of mental furniture that has been picked up and dropped off at the proverbial Goodwill. Committed incestual relationships, committed erastes/eromenos relationships, etc.

The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives (what we would call pedophilia/ephebophilia is not a like case since it runs into the whole "minors consenting to sex with adults" thing). Facts are, homosexuality is not a choice and not every gay person is capable of celibacy. What kind of a God puts one of his followers into that sort of double bind (see 1 Cor. 10:13) when there's a loving, consensual alternative?

Unless He doesn't, and the incongruities are meant to tell us something.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 13, 2018, 10:17:12 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 10:27:19 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 13, 2018, 10:28:27 PM
I don't agree with this idea that celibacy is some sort of moon rock that only happens in one every 120 million people, with discipline, prayer, confession, fasting, avoiding potential sinful circumstances and the precious help of the Holy Spirit one can be a celibate, remember this verse bellow:

13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

1 Cor 10:13




Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 13, 2018, 10:36:06 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 10:37:08 PM
I don't agree with this idea that celibacy is some sort of moon rock that only happens in one every 120 million people, with discipline, prayer, confession, fasting, avoiding potential sinful circumstances and the precious help of the Holy Spirit one can be a celibate

Spoken like someone who's never had adversity in his life.

And apparently not, according to Paul.

Quote from: 1 Cor 7:6-9
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If celibacy really were available to all, then I would think that God would have commanded it.

Now, if you want to argue that everybody who is gay somehow also has the gift to balance it out, then fine. But common experience would seem to be against you.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 13, 2018, 10:37:47 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

+1
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 10:40:38 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't. They can have a sham of a marriage where sex is a begrudging duty, but that hardly sounds like a humane (or, ironically, natural) situation. Would you want to marry a woman who had no desire for you?

Or more to the point if we really want to flip the script, a man?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 13, 2018, 10:59:17 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't. They can have a sham of a marriage where sex is a begrudging duty, but that hardly sounds like a humane (or, ironically, natural) situation. Would you want to marry a woman who had no desire for you?

Or more to the point if we really want to flip the script, a man?

Yes they can, just like men can choose not to masterbate, or smoke ciggerate, there is choices in life, unless your still thinking everything is predestined, and there no free will.

Ohh those poor masterbaters,  they have to live a chaste life,  Ohh no, let's change church doctrine to appease the masterbaters on OC.net
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 13, 2018, 11:05:38 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't.

Are their penises incapable of heterosexual intercourse?  Are vaginas bigoted against them?

Quote
They can have a sham of a marriage where sex is a begrudging duty, but that hardly sounds like a humane (or, ironically, natural) situation. Would you want to marry a woman who had no desire for you?

Or more to the point if we really want to flip the script, a man?

Speaking of flipping scripts, we were talking about sex, and then when I took your argument and ran with it, now you want to talk about marriage.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 13, 2018, 11:08:08 PM
Ohh those poor masterbaters,  they have to live a chaste life,  Ohh no, let's change church doctrine to appease the masterbaters on OC.net

No one changes Church doctrine to scratch that itch.  We just scratch.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Brilko on June 13, 2018, 11:18:04 PM
If celibacy really were available to all, then I would think that God would have commanded it.

Now, if you want to argue that everybody who is gay somehow also has the gift to balance it out, then fine. But common experience would seem to be against you.

A command to universal celibacy would have put a major crimp in the command to be fruitful and multiply.

I’ve never really thought of celibacy as a gift. My sinful self often wishes the Lord hadn’t blessed me so hard. Throw the gift on top of the blessings. Maybe I’ll slide through the judgement by dint of my gifts and blessings.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 13, 2018, 11:21:10 PM
Ohh those poor masterbaters,  they have to live a chaste life,  Ohh no, let's change church doctrine to appease the masterbaters on OC.net

No one changes Church doctrine to scratch that itch.  We just scratch.

If you  got a itch, see a clinic, Rachel must have something 😂
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 13, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 13, 2018, 11:33:48 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

true story, the chanter at our Church, very liberal guy, even admited,  he gets disgusted seeing affection between two guys.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 11:39:30 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't.

Are their penises incapable of heterosexual intercourse?  Are vaginas bigoted against them?

I dunno, are they even capable of erections?

And I thought the Christian bead on sex was that it should be about more than just meat slapping against meat.

Quote
They can have a sham of a marriage where sex is a begrudging duty, but that hardly sounds like a humane (or, ironically, natural) situation. Would you want to marry a woman who had no desire for you?

Or more to the point if we really want to flip the script, a man?

Speaking of flipping scripts, we were talking about sex, and then when I took your argument and ran with it, now you want to talk about marriage.

I'm talking about both as related components of one another. I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 11:41:44 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 11:43:05 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't. They can have a sham of a marriage where sex is a begrudging duty, but that hardly sounds like a humane (or, ironically, natural) situation. Would you want to marry a woman who had no desire for you?

Or more to the point if we really want to flip the script, a man?

Yes they can, just like men can choose not to masterbate, or smoke ciggerate, there is choices in life, unless your still thinking everything is predestined, and there no free will.

Like I said to Julio, it doesn't seem like Paul agrees with you.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 13, 2018, 11:47:06 PM
If celibacy really were available to all, then I would think that God would have commanded it.

Now, if you want to argue that everybody who is gay somehow also has the gift to balance it out, then fine. But common experience would seem to be against you.

A command to universal celibacy would have put a major crimp in the command to be fruitful and multiply.

Is that a command for everybody or just for Adam and Eve? Paul did at least say that he wished everybody was like him.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 14, 2018, 12:36:27 AM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't.

Are their penises incapable of heterosexual intercourse?  Are vaginas bigoted against them?

I dunno, are they even capable of erections?

I've never cared to study this issue.  Go ask some men about their erections and report back to us.   

Quote
And I thought the Christian bead on sex was that it should be about more than just meat slapping against meat.

It is more than that, which makes me wonder why you'd suggest that heterosexuals "have alternatives".  "Having alternatives" = "meat slapping against meat". 

Quote
I'm talking about both as related components of one another. I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Why not?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Brilko on June 14, 2018, 02:20:35 AM
If celibacy really were available to all, then I would think that God would have commanded it.

Now, if you want to argue that everybody who is gay somehow also has the gift to balance it out, then fine. But common experience would seem to be against you.

A command to universal celibacy would have put a major crimp in the command to be fruitful and multiply.

Is that a command for everybody or just for Adam and Eve? Paul did at least say that he wished everybody was like him.

It’s a general, rather than universal command, but would be impossible if everyone were celibate. If wishes were fishes....
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 07:06:00 AM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

That’s stupid.  Homosexuals *can* have sex with people of the opposite sex, “even if it’s a little disappointing”.

No, they can't.

Are their penises incapable of heterosexual intercourse?  Are vaginas bigoted against them?

I dunno, are they even capable of erections?

I've never cared to study this issue.  Go ask some men about their erections and report back to us.

I'm not the one suggesting that gay men should just up and marry a woman (and I guess magically become straight?). Burden of proof's on you. While you're at, run this plan by a few gay guys (and perspective beard-wives) and see what reactions you get.

Quote
And I thought the Christian bead on sex was that it should be about more than just meat slapping against meat.

It is more than that, which makes me wonder why you'd suggest that heterosexuals "have alternatives".  "Having alternatives" = "meat slapping against meat".

How many people do you know of that are attracted only to their siblings? By "alternative," I mean "an option for a life that isn't either forced celibacy or castration." As far as I can tell the only group, other than homosexuals in the Church, that are faced with a dilemma like this are exclusive pedophiles and people with really rare paraphilias (regrettable necessities in their cases). I'd rather make darn sure that it's absolutely necessary before condemning someone to a fate like that against their will.

Quote
I'm talking about both as related components of one another. I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Why not?

Because there's more to life than just getting your rocks off. Stable families and marriages are good.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 14, 2018, 08:27:55 AM
Alas! He is going further back to his Episcopalian roots.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 14, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Critiques of the Orthodox approach to homosexuality and other issues never come right out and say it. That's too bold, and would never catch. Instead, they take an approach that becomes very easy to pick up on.

1. Acknowledge the teaching of the Church, explicitly or implicitly.

2. Implicitly accuse what has always been the Church's pastoral approach to same-sex relations and other such sins as being wrong.

3. Ask a bunch of loaded questions. Do not answer them. There's no need, because the intended audience already has in their heads.

4. Lead everyone to the conclusion that x (in this case, a committed same-sex relationship) is OK, because y (same-sex promiscuity) is "worse" (somehow).
exactly
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 14, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2018/06/13/the-church-and-homosexuality-a-meditation/

The above link is from Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy within the ancient faith ministry website. I saw an Orthodox lady post it in another forum.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 14, 2018, 10:39:43 AM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.
   The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.
    I believe people can change, it takes awhile but its possible. We cant give in to societal changes, bend to the church not, bend the church to you.
   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI

Good 10 min video from a catholic about how the homosexual movement is a tool.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 14, 2018, 10:57:21 AM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.


Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman, that's what generates offspring.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 14, 2018, 12:08:13 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex, God made them in the flesh, yet they define that image the same way straight people do with inappropriate serious sinful acts, they need to repent, and become Orthodox. Sorry the Church will not defile the sacrament of marriage to appease the LGBT activists,  some in the laity, and some on this website, there never been a thing called "Gay Marriage", so called Gay Marriage will bring about the destruction of modern civilization.

I can't say this enough, we must conform to the Church, and repent, confess our sins, go to the services, partake in the Eucharist, we should not think the Church needs to conform to our wants, and needs.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Antonis on June 14, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Blog response by Fr. Lawrence Farley:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/metropolitan-kallistos-and-the-wheel/
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 12:12:16 PM
I dislike the Metropolitan's implication that the Church is in contradiction in serving a man constantly falling into casual homosexuality and repenting while denying the mysteries to a man in a stable homosexual relationship. The latter is living in sin, while the former is actively battling it, and even if he's cyclically falling, he's also cyclically coming up again.

To take this problem out of the homosexuality subject, compare a single straight man who sometimes fall into fornication (although trying to stay a way from it) to someone in a pre-marital relationship with sex as a habit. I believe other posters here, as myself, may have seen themselves on both sides. While a single man may repent from fornication without being infallible in preventing it to happen again, one should never approach the Eucharist having plans to fornicate again and again after it due to being in a relationship that agrees to this sin habitually.

Why should it be different with homosexuals? Unless one is advocating that homosexual marriage should be a thing...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 14, 2018, 12:39:38 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex, God made them in the flesh, yet they define that image the same way straight people do with inappropriate serious sinful acts, they need to repent, and become Orthodox. Sorry the Church will not defile the sacrament of marriage to appease the LGBT activists,  some in the laity, and some on this website, there never been a thing called "Gay Marriage", so called Gay Marriage will bring about the destruction of modern civilization.

I can't say this enough, we must conform to the Church, and repent, confess our sins, go to the services, partake in the Eucharist, we should not think the Church needs to conform to our wants, and needs.

Thats the point. One is natural (skin color, height, eye color) while one isnt. Every time this comes up, its always the same, " they were born like that, its natural".
    Its not natural, sure maybe their desires are very strong but so are other desires which are sins. I never see someone say a habitual thief is just acting naturally so its ok, or someone who has pedophilia urges to act since its only natural.
    If you give them an inch they wont stop, as we've seen with the gay agenda since the 80's. They got acceptance in popular culutre, they have the right to marry, so what do they do? They push transgender rights, non gender conformity ideals and now openly target the next generation with pure propaganda. We messed up allowing gays to have any legal rights, and it shows by what they're pushing now. I know ill get lambasted but, whats next? Pedophile rights, incest, beastiality? 30 years ago you'd laugh if i said laws were enacted to let men use the womens bathroom/locker rooms or men competing as women in state sponsored sports activities.
     They never stop, and neither should we. America is the new Sodom and Gomorrah
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 14, 2018, 04:44:33 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

true story, the chanter at our Church, very liberal guy, even admited,  he gets disgusted seeing affection between two guys.

And your point?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 14, 2018, 04:48:59 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

I'm sterile. I can't have children, because I have ovarian cysts. I'm a heterosexual woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order.

 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 14, 2018, 04:49:52 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

true story, the chanter at our Church, very liberal guy, even admited,  he gets disgusted seeing affection between two guys.

And your point?
latent  homosexuality?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 14, 2018, 04:51:58 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Agabus on June 14, 2018, 04:57:30 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order.

I have always thought an appeal to the animal kingdom is the wrong way to go. Same-sex stuff happens in the animal kingdom, but AFAIK the love-lust inclination of humans is unique to our image bearing.

Gays are not gorillas. They are humans. Their feelings and experiences are far and away different than those of animals.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 14, 2018, 05:08:46 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 14, 2018, 05:27:36 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

Maybe pedophilia, then.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 06:17:02 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?

that's what generates offspring.

So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 06:19:13 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to? Are all gay people really gifted for celibacy? I don't see that in evidence.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 14, 2018, 06:24:28 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to?

Amazing...in an effort to defend homosexual persons and their dignity, you debase and dehumanize them in a way that goes beyond anything anyone else in this discussion has dared to suggest.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 06:24:38 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 06:28:18 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to?

Amazing...in an effort to defend homosexual persons and their dignity, you debase and dehumanize them in a way that goes beyond anything anyone else in this discussion has dared to suggest.

It's not dehumanizing if it's a problem common to most of humanity. Do you have the ability to just will yourself into celibacy without "burning with passion?" It seems to me that it's a gift from God that not everybody, gay or straight, is given.

I mean, yes, they can just not have sex for the rest of their lives. But it wouldn't be good for them or very successful (or humane to force on them with threats of Hell), much like it probably wouldn't be for you if you became a monk or something.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 14, 2018, 06:44:40 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to?

Amazing...in an effort to defend homosexual persons and their dignity, you debase and dehumanize them in a way that goes beyond anything anyone else in this discussion has dared to suggest.

It's not dehumanizing if it's a problem common to most of humanity. Do you have the ability to just will yourself into celibacy without "burning with passion?" It seems to me that it's a gift from God that not everybody, gay or straight, is given.

I mean, yes, they can just not have sex for the rest of their lives. But it wouldn't be good for them or very successful (or humane to force on them with threats of Hell), much like it probably wouldn't be for you if you became a monk or something.

Throughout this thread, you have made outrageous claims by oversimplifying.  Stop.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 07:24:17 PM
How am I oversimplifying? Doesn't Paul say that the gift of celibacy is not something everybody has?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sethrak on June 14, 2018, 07:45:54 PM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 07:57:33 PM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sethrak on June 14, 2018, 08:18:28 PM
So you are the (word removed) Muslim lobbyist ~ evangelical monkey man ~ what else ~ do you play the guitar or tambourine ```



Just kidding ```

Please refrain from ad hominems.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
How am I oversimplifying? Doesn't Paul say that the gift of celibacy is not something everybody has?
But some people are forced into it by other conditions.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 08:28:22 PM
So you are the Queer, Muslim lobbyist ~ evangelical monkey man ~ what else ~ do you play the guitar or tambourine ```



Just kidding ```

Ahyuck hyuck hyuck




Also, off topic, but I'm not a Muslim lobbyist. I just don't want to see them shoveled into gas chambers based on innuendo and stereotypes. Just to clarify.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 08:29:06 PM
How am I oversimplifying? Doesn't Paul say that the gift of celibacy is not something everybody has?
But some people are forced into it by other conditions.

True. But the charitable thing would be to make sure it only happens as a last resort.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 08:31:39 PM
Having a celibatary attitude to licit sex while wishing to drive sexual energy only to sin is already the last resort. You don't see it because nowadays homosexuality has been so normalised.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 14, 2018, 08:42:15 PM
Homosexuals are gay.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 08:43:22 PM
Having a celibatary attitude to licit sex while wishing to drive sexual energy only to sin is already the last resort. You don't see it because nowadays homosexuality has been so normalised.

But like I said, why shouldn't it be normalised? The idea that gay sex can only ever be sinful comes down to us from a time when people had little to no idea that a stable, loving gay relationships could be a thing. That's not their fault, of course. It just hadn't really occurred to them.

Now we can clearly see that gay relationships can be just as functional and apparently happy as the average straight relationship. It seems like people might be continuing to call common that which God has made clean.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 09:40:32 PM
There's a whole theology of marriage that needs two genders to complete each other in its realisation. The human reproductive system itself fails to perform its function without being completed by the opposite sex. People always had "stable, loving relationships" with mistresses and eunuchs, and Israel and the Church always frowned upon it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 14, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Having a celibatary attitude to licit sex while wishing to drive sexual energy only to sin is already the last resort. You don't see it because nowadays homosexuality has been so normalised.

But like I said, why shouldn't it be normalised? The idea that gay sex can only ever be sinful comes down to us from a time when people had little to no idea that a stable, loving gay relationships could be a thing. That's not their fault, of course. It just hadn't really occurred to them.

Now we can clearly see that gay relationships can be just as functional and apparently happy as the average straight relationship. It seems like people might be continuing to call common that which God has made clean.

Your saying the Church fathers, Christ himself, the Apostles, the martyrs, which this church is built upon us wrong, because Homosexuals "can live in loving relationships" , so can Mormons, who are into polygamy, so can people in certain countries marrying 9 year olds, yet it not what the Church has taught, and preserved in the sacrament of marriage, from generation to generation. Sorry Orthodoxy won't become Eastern Espciopalianism or a Eastern version of the ELCA, it will remain the same, our lord promised the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 11:13:56 PM
There's a whole theology of marriage that needs two genders to complete each other in its realisation.

That's one argument, yes. But I tend to think that this kind of essentialist complimentarian thinking was defeated the first time a woman put on pants or got a job.

The human reproductive system itself fails to perform its function without being completed by the opposite sex.

And yet the Church has no problem with straight couples who can't conceive. It seems to me that gay couples who adopt could perform a valuable social function of.

At any rate, for all we know advancing technology will allow gay couples to conceive someday.

People always had "stable, loving relationships" with mistresses and eunuchs, and Israel and the Church always frowned upon it.

Affairs are not possible without hurting somebody else, not very loving to the wronged party.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 11:19:02 PM
Traditional roles is one thing, sexuality is another, which expresses basic biology. It is a scientific fact that the reproductive system doesn't work without another people and that heterosexuality is necessary for the species to live on, while things like who works (protip: women worked - a lot - in ancient rural societies, regardless of what Vitorians would like to wonder).

Heterosexual couples who cannot conceive suffer from accidental flaws, while they can still live their essential marks otherwise.

And the reason why the Fathers were against eunuchs wasn't really who was being hurt... One might perfectly have a eunuch to satisfy their libido without being married. It would still be wrong. Ancient societies weren't as simple as they would look like through our modern lenses.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 11:19:25 PM
Having a celibatary attitude to licit sex while wishing to drive sexual energy only to sin is already the last resort. You don't see it because nowadays homosexuality has been so normalised.

But like I said, why shouldn't it be normalised? The idea that gay sex can only ever be sinful comes down to us from a time when people had little to no idea that a stable, loving gay relationships could be a thing. That's not their fault, of course. It just hadn't really occurred to them.

Now we can clearly see that gay relationships can be just as functional and apparently happy as the average straight relationship. It seems like people might be continuing to call common that which God has made clean.

Your saying the Church fathers, Christ himself, the Apostles, the martyrs, which this church is built upon us wrong,

A possible analogy- every Church Father who talked about it was a Geocentrist. That doesn't make them wrong, or mean that Geocentrism is true, it just makes them reflective of their time (Heliocentrism did exist in the ancient world, it was just always a minority view among the educated).

because Homosexuals "can live in loving relationships" , so can Mormons, who are into polygamy, so can people in certain countries marrying 9 year olds, yet it not what the Church has taught, and preserved in the sacrament of marriage, from generation to generation.

Polygamy is debatable, I guess (it's not like it doesn't have a history in the OT). Though there's certainly possible arguments to be made against it on abuse grounds. Nine year-olds are not capable of consenting to marriage, so that comparison doesn't fly.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 14, 2018, 11:20:31 PM
"(Straight people) are against homosexuality because they cannot stop thinking of what gay men do with each other." - Quentin Crisp
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 14, 2018, 11:22:03 PM
"(Straight people) are against homosexuality because they cannot stop thinking of what gay men do with each other." - Quentin Crisp
Wooo... hot!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 14, 2018, 11:25:40 PM
I predict that both of the current threads on gay people will be closed early tomorrow.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2018, 11:32:39 PM
Traditional roles is one thing, sexuality is another, which expresses basic biology. It is a scientific fact that the reproductive system doesn't work without another people and that heterosexuality is necessary for the species to live on, while things like who works (protip: women worked - a lot - in ancient rural societies, regardless of what Vitorians would like to wonder).

They did work, which shows that the reductive idea of man as provider, woman as provided for doesn't completely match reality.

Heterosexual couples who cannot conceive suffer from accidental flaws, while they can still live their essential marks otherwise.

In other words, there are cases in which biology is not one of the essential marks of a marriage.

And why is the species living on such a big deal? Let it whither away to hasten the eschaton. It's not like homosexuals will ever be the majority of humanity, anyway (and it's also not like IVF doesn't exist if it's really needed that badly).

And the reason why the Fathers were against eunuchs wasn't really who was being hurt... One might perfectly have a eunuch to satisfy their libido without being married. It would still be wrong. Ancient societies weren't as simple as they would look like through our modern lenses.

Weren't eunuchs almost entirely slaves? I'd say that's inherently abusive, for one thing.

Beyond that, perhaps if they'd lived today he and that free eunuch would have wanted to get married- but nobody in that time, including they themselves, could really conceptualize it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 15, 2018, 12:25:15 AM

A possible analogy- every Church Father who talked about it was a Geocentrist. That doesn't make them wrong, or mean that Geocentrism is true, it just makes them reflective of their time (Heliocentrism did exist in the ancient world, it was just always a minority view among the educated).

So your argument goes that since every church father who condemned homosexual acts was a geocentrist (you're going to have to cite some source to prove that) and geocentrism is obviously incorrect, they are also wrong about homosexuality.  Because those two things are SO closely related to one another.  I'm sure that the church fathers who are  now living among the saints all said, "Well, we were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe so it only makes logical sense that homosexual acts are also ok.  Who knew?" 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 15, 2018, 12:34:16 AM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

I'm sterile. I can't have children, because I have ovarian cysts. I'm a heterosexual woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order.

Im sorry you cant have kids, did you choose to have cysts?
My point is being gay is a choie, i know you didnt choose to have cysts.
If i post a pic of a mouse having sex with a dead mouse in a trap does that mean necrophilia is natural?
Animals arent human, they live on impulses and sex is a big one because in the wild someone might eat you, so its best to be able to procreate earlier in its life cycle In the case of the gorillas they might have sex with younger males but id be willing to bet they still seek out the females.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 15, 2018, 12:42:58 AM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.

So 20 years ago we had cross dressers demanding to have laws changed to allow them to access female locker rooms/bathrooms? We had gay groups demanding jail time for anyone who calls someone the wrong pronoun?
No we didnt, and if you cant see how the GAY AGENDA has progressively pushed more and more degeneracy from gay rights to trans, to no binary gender dysphoria, to drag queen kids, ill call you blind.
     Everyone can see the progession in the past few decades,
https://desmondisamazing.com
As a parent who sees the content being pushed at the youth im appalled. Like i said before, they are pushing for our kids to be gay, to accept it as NORMAL.
  People who push a 10 year old boy into being gay dont have a mental disorder? Huh, i guess thats normal.....
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 15, 2018, 12:47:25 AM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 15, 2018, 12:59:04 AM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Awww that such discrimination, all Jimmy wants is a Scooby snack, it only "natural".
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 15, 2018, 01:10:24 AM
They did work, which shows that the reductive idea of man as provider, woman as provided for doesn't completely match reality.
Yeah, but that's culture, not body theology or ontology;

Quote
In other words, there are cases in which biology is not one of the essential marks of a marriage.
Yeah, there are cases where biology doesn't allow natural desire and a natural institution to get to it's final consequences. But it's still natural.

Quote
And why is the species living on such a big deal? Let it whither away to hasten the eschaton. It's not like homosexuals will ever be the majority of humanity, anyway (and it's also not like IVF doesn't exist if it's really needed that badly).
My point is not really practical, but biological. Life comes through procreation. Sex works for that. A necessarily sterile sexual desire is a desire toward sin. It is different from a natural and healthy desire that happens to not be fully accomplished due to health flaws. Being a man or being a woman is not a health flaw, it's nature working.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 01:23:12 AM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Yes, because a dog showing affection for his owner is the same as one adult human falling in love with another.


And Mor said that I was being dehumanizing.

The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.

So 20 years ago we had cross dressers demanding to have laws changed to allow them to access female locker rooms/bathrooms? We had gay groups demanding jail time for anyone who calls someone the wrong pronoun?

I never said we did.

No we didnt, and if you cant see how the GAY AGENDA has progressively pushed more and more degeneracy from gay rights to trans, to no binary gender dysphoria, to drag queen kids, ill call you blind.

The "gay agenda" is just people like you and me (some of them Christian. Some even Orthodox, I'm sure) who just want to live their lives without being harassed (legally or interpersonally- like when some well-intentioned spiritual abuser tells them that they're going to Hell for being who they are).

(https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-think-im-gay.jpg?resize=500%2C500)

Everyone can see the progession in the past few decades,
https://desmondisamazing.com
As a parent who sees the content being pushed at the youth im appalled. Like i said before, they are pushing for our kids to be gay, to accept it as NORMAL.
  People who push a 10 year old boy into being gay dont have a mental disorder? Huh, i guess thats normal.....

Who says the kid is being pushed? Allowing them to do something they can't easily take back, like surgery, is probably a bad idea on the part of the parents. But who's being harmed by allowing them to live how they want to right now and either confirm a trans identity or not for themselves as they grow up and find out who they are like any other child does?

Seems to me that getting a bunch of adults and authority figures together to try and coerce the kid into gender conformity will do a heck of a lot more psychological harm than that (and woe betide the parents if the kid doesn't grow up agreeing with such a decision).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 01:28:32 AM

A possible analogy- every Church Father who talked about it was a Geocentrist. That doesn't make them wrong, or mean that Geocentrism is true, it just makes them reflective of their time (Heliocentrism did exist in the ancient world, it was just always a minority view among the educated).

So your argument goes that since every church father who condemned homosexual acts was a geocentrist (you're going to have to cite some source to prove that)

Were there any Fathers at all who weren't Geocentrist? I mean, I guess you can't argue from silence, but I don't know of any preaching Heliocentrism, and it wouldn't be hard to see it as a bone of contention theologically with the whole "man has been placed at the center of the Cosmos" thing.

and geocentrism is obviously incorrect, they are also wrong about homosexuality.  Because those two things are SO closely related to one another.  I'm sure that the church fathers who are  now living among the saints all said, "Well, we were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe so it only makes logical sense that homosexual acts are also ok.  Who knew?"

Both are based on physical and philosophical models of the way nature works, both have been more or less dissproven by this point. Science marches on.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 01:33:50 AM
They did work, which shows that the reductive idea of man as provider, woman as provided for doesn't completely match reality.
Yeah, but that's culture, not body theology or ontology;

Careful, too much of that kind of talk and Nigel might call you a feminist. ;)

If it's really God's will that women don't work, then why were they made capable of doing it?

Quote
In other words, there are cases in which biology is not one of the essential marks of a marriage.
Yeah, there are cases where biology doesn't allow natural desire and a natural institution to get to it's final consequences. But it's still natural.

Then what makes the institution natural? How do you tell a bug from a feature here?

Quote
And why is the species living on such a big deal? Let it whither away to hasten the eschaton. It's not like homosexuals will ever be the majority of humanity, anyway (and it's also not like IVF doesn't exist if it's really needed that badly).
My point is not really practical, but biological. Life comes through procreation. Sex works for that. A necessarily sterile sexual desire is a desire toward sin. It is different from a natural and healthy desire that happens to not be fully accomplished due to health flaws. Being a man or being a woman is not a health flaw, it's nature working.

So, an infertile straight person is sinning by desiring to get married?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 15, 2018, 02:03:06 AM
If it's really God's will that women don't work, then why were they made capable of doing it?
Oh I never said that. On the contrary, most women worked for most of history somehow (helping their husbands, but still). I believe the ideal of a homestay wife is a Victorian myth.

Quote
Then what makes the institution natural? How do you tell a bug from a feature here?
The own nature of man and woman.

Quote
So, an infertile straight person is sinning by desiring to get married?
No, because this desire can have a pure origin, a pure end, a pure object and a pure result. They may be biologically incapable of having the fullness of results, but it's still all natural and licit.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 03:01:56 AM
If it's really God's will that women don't work, then why were they made capable of doing it?
Oh I never said that. On the contrary, most women worked for most of history somehow (helping their husbands, but still). I believe the ideal of a homestay wife is a Victorian myth.

Fair enough. But what does this tell us about the nature of the genders and their natural roles if women don't as much need men to protect them?

Quote
Then what makes the institution natural? How do you tell a bug from a feature here?
The own nature of man and woman.

Quote
So, an infertile straight person is sinning by desiring to get married?
No, because this desire can have a pure origin, a pure end, a pure object and a pure result. They may be biologically incapable of having the fullness of results, but it's still all natural and licit.

But if the end can be pure even without children, why can't a gay relationship also be pure? They can at least have the same results in practice via adoption. And if God can work a miracle for Abraham and Sarah, and for other infertile straight couples, what's stopping Him from miraculously enabling a gay couple to conceive? Faith of a mustard seed and all that.

Heck, if we somehow, someday develop the technology to enable some kind of same sex conception, how do we know that's not the perfect will of God to enable gay couples to conceive?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 15, 2018, 05:54:46 AM
Fair enough. But what does this tell us about the nature of the genders and their natural roles if women don't as much need men to protect them?
Not much, at least not prescriptively.

Quote
But if the end can be pure even without children, why can't a gay relationship also be pure? They can at least have the same results in practice via adoption. And if God can work a miracle for Abraham and Sarah, and for other infertile straight couples, what's stopping Him from miraculously enabling a gay couple to conceive? Faith of a mustard seed and all that.

Heck, if we somehow, someday develop the technology to enable some kind of same sex conception, how do we know that's not the perfect will of God to enable gay couples to conceive?
Sure, God's will can extrapolate any of our theories, but that's not what he wants. He made it very clear in Scripture. Hebrews and Christians have done far more subversive stuff than gay marriage in our long history and none of it included blessing homosexual unions, on the contrary. No saint suggested that, no Scripture left room for that. If sodomy were something as trivial as pork or Saturday, we would have found out without people who have absolutely nothing to do with the Church telling us so. Church history is not dialectic with the world, at least not intrinsically. The only dialectics of the Church are extrinsic: the City of God vs. the City of Man, or Orthodoxy vs. The Religion of the Future.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: juliogb on June 15, 2018, 08:12:22 AM
Quote
No we didnt, and if you cant see how the GAY AGENDA has progressively pushed more and more degeneracy from gay rights to trans, to no binary gender dysphoria, to drag queen kids, ill call you blind.

Not only gay, the LGBT political militancy as a whole wants to push all kinds of degeneracy, the lesbian and gay are the first part, then transgender people, then who knows, trans-age people (there are people claiming that already), and from trans-age it is just a little step to the ultimate goal, open and legalized paedophilia.

 Before someone says that I am accusing all gays of paedophilia, I am not, but saying that the financers and hidden figures (really powerful people in the media outlets, governments, corporations, Hollywood, pop music industry, banks...) of the LGBT political movement are working to desensitize society more and more till abhorrent degeneracies are normalized and treated as homossexuality is treated today in western countries.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Luke on June 15, 2018, 10:40:57 AM
Article by Fr. Lawrence Farley:  https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/metropolitan-kallistos-and-the-wheel/ (https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/metropolitan-kallistos-and-the-wheel/)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 15, 2018, 11:40:07 AM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Yes, because a dog showing affection for his owner is the same as one adult human falling in love with another.


And Mor said that I was being dehumanizing.

The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.

So 20 years ago we had cross dressers demanding to have laws changed to allow them to access female locker rooms/bathrooms? We had gay groups demanding jail time for anyone who calls someone the wrong pronoun?

I never said we did.

No we didnt, and if you cant see how the GAY AGENDA has progressively pushed more and more degeneracy from gay rights to trans, to no binary gender dysphoria, to drag queen kids, ill call you blind.

The "gay agenda" is just people like you and me (some of them Christian. Some even Orthodox, I'm sure) who just want to live their lives without being harassed (legally or interpersonally- like when some well-intentioned spiritual abuser tells them that they're going to Hell for being who they are).

(https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-think-im-gay.jpg?resize=500%2C500)

Everyone can see the progession in the past few decades,
https://desmondisamazing.com
As a parent who sees the content being pushed at the youth im appalled. Like i said before, they are pushing for our kids to be gay, to accept it as NORMAL.
  People who push a 10 year old boy into being gay dont have a mental disorder? Huh, i guess thats normal.....

Who says the kid is being pushed? Allowing them to do something they can't easily take back, like surgery, is probably a bad idea on the part of the parents. But who's being harmed by allowing them to live how they want to right now and either confirm a trans identity or not for themselves as they grow up and find out who they are like any other child does?

Seems to me that getting a bunch of adults and authority figures together to try and coerce the kid into gender conformity will do a heck of a lot more psychological harm than that (and woe betide the parents if the kid doesn't grow up agreeing with such a decision).

You side step all my statements, then claim its ok for a kid t behave how they want. When my kid was little she pretended to be a unicorn, should i have tried to get her surgeries and helped her transition?

I dont claim 100% of gays push the movement to ever more degrading societal behavior, but the fact that the movement does doesnt change the fact its happening.

You dont think the Overton window has shifted? Societal norms have degraded and i dont see the GAY AGENDA stopping its push for ever more degeneracy in society. My statement is, when dose it stop? What the real goal, because like ive said gays can marry, they have legal protection, they aee excepted in 2018 society  (i don't thinkit should be, but it is) so why do they keep pushing revolution/rebellion against societal norms?

We are on opposite ends of this, i wont change yours, and you wont change mine. Enjoy the weekend.

To all others please watch the video, its spot on

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-OXt5NWcRs

E. MIchael jones, a scholar and author sums it up in under 10mins.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 15, 2018, 01:22:40 PM
You dont think the Overton window has shifted? Societal norms have degraded and i dont see the GAY AGENDA stopping its push for ever more degeneracy in society. My statement is, when dose it stop?

As far as I can determine, heterosexuals are the majority in every society. And there are also conservative gays/lesbians who are horrified by how fast and far the western world is moving toward licentiousness and the questioning of biological gender who are potential allies. So why have people let the pendulum swing so far away from traditional values?

Perhaps rather than ranting about the 'gay agenda' heterosexual people need to set boundaries for what is and is not acceptable in their communities. One might begin by at least enforcing the laws about indecent behaviour which do exist to tone down the excesses of some(?) gay pride parades and the streets of some gay neighbourhoods. Of course it would also be helpful if heterosexual couples could tone down their displays of affection in public as well.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 15, 2018, 01:26:49 PM
As a parent...

You have children?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 01:29:15 PM
The gay agenda, probably: going to school, getting a job, maybe settling down.

The gay agenda, probably not: assaulting someone in a washroom.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 15, 2018, 01:30:11 PM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Yes, because a dog showing affection for his owner is the same as one adult human falling in love with another.


And Mor said that I was being dehumanizing.

And I was right. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 15, 2018, 02:02:22 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 02:27:04 PM
The Lord only destroyed two towns in that story.

He destroyed much, much more in the flood of Noah.

What does that say about Noah, who slept with his daughters after the flood?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 02:40:26 PM
You dont think the Overton window has shifted? Societal norms have degraded and i dont see the GAY AGENDA stopping its push for ever more degeneracy in society. My statement is, when dose it stop?

As far as I can determine, heterosexuals are the majority in every society. And there are also conservative gays/lesbians who are horrified by how fast and far the western world is moving toward licentiousness and the questioning of biological gender who are potential allies. So why have people let the pendulum swing so far away from traditional values?

Perhaps rather than ranting about the 'gay agenda' heterosexual people need to set boundaries for what is and is not acceptable in their communities. One might begin by at least enforcing the laws about indecent behaviour which do exist to tone down the excesses of some(?) gay pride parades and the streets of some gay neighbourhoods. Of course it would also be helpful if heterosexual couples could tone down their displays of affection in public as well.

Probably good points, yeah.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 02:44:51 PM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Yes, because a dog showing affection for his owner is the same as one adult human falling in love with another.


And Mor said that I was being dehumanizing.

And I was right.

Well, I don't want to dehumanize anybody and I welcome correction. But you've not told me how you think I'm dehumanizing gay people, nor how I'm oversimplifying related issues.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but my contention is simply that "have you tried not being gay?" is unlikely to work for the majority any more than "have you tried not being straight?" is likely to work for you.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 02:49:46 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 15, 2018, 02:50:47 PM
The Lord only destroyed two towns in that story.

He destroyed much, much more in the flood of Noah.

What does that say about Noah, who slept with his daughters after the flood?

I think the causes for the Lord’s “wrath” is not identical in both accounts. I cannot recall if Noah willingly slept with his daughters. Lot didn’t willingly sleep with his daughters.Obviously incest is condemned as per Leviticus 18, 19, 20 etc.

I believe Christ upheld the traditional morality but condemned humans judging & killing moral offenders since no one can cast the first stone. We have “saints” like Justinian in the church so the Lord’s preaching has not often been heeded it seems.

It seems like either mercy is lacking in our understanding or how to deal with sin. I am not trying to exalt myself just trying to figure things out . Have to break off at this point, probably have typos.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 15, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 02:53:18 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

I'm sterile. I can't have children, because I have ovarian cysts. I'm a heterosexual woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order.
even if you were fertile, you can't marry a silverback ape. In the Church, that is. Legally that will be just around the corner...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 02:58:21 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 02:59:25 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cities aren't named after the things people do there.

The name of the city wouldn't have been rape.

The term 'sodomy' became used to mean male anal sex *long after* the existence of the two towns.

Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:00:15 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to? Are all gay people really gifted for celibacy? I don't see that in evidence.
Are all single people really gifted for celibacy? I don't see that in evidence.

Except for Moonies, I've never know straight people marrying any random person of the opposite sex.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:01:39 PM
http://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Ill listen to my gut. Its unnatural, and sterile hence its against god

"Wisdom of disgust" arguments don't really prove anything. I'm sure that some people are disgusted by interracial marriage. too.

Ahhh there you again, conflating someone with skin color they can not change, born that way, with fallen people, who have the free will to chose it not chose to have sexual intercourse, or marry someone of the same sex,

Do they have the free will to?

Amazing...in an effort to defend homosexual persons and their dignity, you debase and dehumanize them in a way that goes beyond anything anyone else in this discussion has dared to suggest.
Funny how that goes around-to defend homosexual sexuality, we have to debase humanity.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 03:03:30 PM
The same people, yelling the same old things, over and over and over.

 ::)

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:03:39 PM
The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.
saying it is normal, natural or sane does not make it so.

As society slides down the slope, one need only look.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:07:54 PM
The same people, yelling the same old things, over and over and over.

 ::)
yes, we hear you echoing again and again and again.Try this  :-X
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 03:08:28 PM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:10:37 PM
Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?
First, what is your source for that?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:13:56 PM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Something to ponder: your echoing has rendered you deaf, if you weren't before.

Ialmisry did not do something God hates. He was on the receiving end, a fact that has been in evidence looooong ago here, and you ignore because it stands in the way of your pot shots.

But then I forgot part of being morally dissolute is the inability to distinguish guilt from innocence.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 03:14:26 PM
Marriage is a Sacrament of a joining of one man with one woman ```

Two men ~ two woman ~ a dog and a chicken or any unnatural combination is an abomination ``` The foolish ~ the unprincipled politician and the atheist political left ~ have arranged that the word Christians have used for a High Sacrament to be title of a  legal document ~ as contract between perverted adults ```

This is not and will never be Holy Matrimony ~ not ~ Christ nor His Church will ever sanction sin ```


I'm surprised at the comparison of animal practice to justify filth being natural ~ dogs eat their own crap and that of other animals ~ this dirty habit ~ in no way makes it right or natural for humans ```

I agree about appeals to animals. They generally fail.

But comparing two adult humans to a human having sex with an animal fails because animals are not consenting beings that can enter into relationships.

You BIGOT, why cant jimmy and scoobydoo get married? He was born loving dogs, its natural and you are a hateful bigot.
Scooby loves jimmy he shows his affection everyday.

Yes, because a dog showing affection for his owner is the same as one adult human falling in love with another.


And Mor said that I was being dehumanizing.

The difference is that incest, affairs, etc. at least have alternatives...

How so?  If I want to have sex with my sister, having sex with someone else’s sister (as nice an experience as it may be for the latter) just isn’t going to cut it for me.

Yes, but you can have sex with some other woman, even if it's a little disappointing. A gay person has three choices- celibacy, castration, or hell.

Thats if you believe that they were born that way, which i dont and many others agree with. Like most sins they are taught and how many men that have had a same sex affair turned straight and stayed straight.

Oh cool. More pseduoscience from the antivaxxer. Give me a second to realign my chakras before you start.

The problem is, if the church caves to homosexuals, then it must do so for every other degenerate mental disorder. So mext year we'll have the same discussion about men who've chopped off their "digit", then the next year incest, the next beastiality. Its just a slight shifting of the overton window over and over till the church is destroyed.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show that one thing really will lead to another.

Just like people in this thread keep putting scare quotes around gay marriage in the hope that it sticks, you just saying that it's a mental disorder doesn't make it so.

So 20 years ago we had cross dressers demanding to have laws changed to allow them to access female locker rooms/bathrooms? We had gay groups demanding jail time for anyone who calls someone the wrong pronoun?

I never said we did.

No we didnt, and if you cant see how the GAY AGENDA has progressively pushed more and more degeneracy from gay rights to trans, to no binary gender dysphoria, to drag queen kids, ill call you blind.

The "gay agenda" is just people like you and me (some of them Christian. Some even Orthodox, I'm sure) who just want to live their lives without being harassed (legally or interpersonally- like when some well-intentioned spiritual abuser tells them that they're going to Hell for being who they are).

(https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/i-think-im-gay.jpg?resize=500%2C500)

Everyone can see the progession in the past few decades,
https://desmondisamazing.com
As a parent who sees the content being pushed at the youth im appalled. Like i said before, they are pushing for our kids to be gay, to accept it as NORMAL.
  People who push a 10 year old boy into being gay dont have a mental disorder? Huh, i guess thats normal.....

Who says the kid is being pushed? Allowing them to do something they can't easily take back, like surgery, is probably a bad idea on the part of the parents. But who's being harmed by allowing them to live how they want to right now and either confirm a trans identity or not for themselves as they grow up and find out who they are like any other child does?

Seems to me that getting a bunch of adults and authority figures together to try and coerce the kid into gender conformity will do a heck of a lot more psychological harm than that (and woe betide the parents if the kid doesn't grow up agreeing with such a decision).

You side step all my statements, then claim its ok for a kid t behave how they want. When my kid was little she pretended to be a unicorn, should i have tried to get her surgeries and helped her transition?

If there was a way for one to be human but also somehow a unicorn (or a cat or Napoleon or "black" like Rachel Dolezal, or whatever), maybe, though it would still depend on a lot of particulars. But there doesn't seem to be such a mechanism. Gender, on the other hand, is something that science just barely understands when it comes to even just the mind and body, never mind the difficulties inherent when the spiritual is added to the mix.

But like I said in that other thread, I'm less confident on trans issues than I am on gay rights (yes, I know this wouldn't endear me to many LGBT people).

I still maintain that "repairitive therapy" is mostly abusive, though.

I dont claim 100% of gays push the movement to ever more degrading societal behavior, but the fact that the movement does doesnt change the fact its happening.

You dont think the Overton window has shifted? Societal norms have degraded and i dont see the GAY AGENDA stopping its push for ever more degeneracy in society. My statement is, when dose it stop? What the real goal, because like ive said gays can marry, they have legal protection, they aee excepted in 2018 society  (i don't thinkit should be, but it is) so why do they keep pushing revolution/rebellion against societal norms?

For now, they are. But plenty of people would like to change this (just as there were and are people who would like to roll back racial rights). It's just the same vigilance that you urge conservative Christians to have (sauce for the goose, as it were).

I don't deny that there are some activists who can be overzealous or make bad arguments. But they're likely a minority and I see no reason to conclude that it's some sinister organized thing. You and Julio are mistaking people with common goals for a conspiracy and making unwarranted extrapolations from there.

We are on opposite ends of this, i wont change yours, and you wont change mine. Enjoy the weekend.

Fair enough. God bless.

To all others please watch the video, its spot on

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-OXt5NWcRs

E. MIchael jones, a scholar and author sums it up in under 10mins.

E. Michael Jones is an antisemitic nut.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 03:15:19 PM
Malachi 2:16

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 03:16:48 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cities aren't named after the things people do there.

The name of the city wouldn't have been rape.

The term 'sodomy' became used to mean male anal sex *long after* the existence of the two towns.

Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?

You're right about the city, but you're confusing Noah with Lot.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:18:19 PM
Malachi 2:16

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Since Ialmisry is not said man, is there a reason for posting this, or is just for yelling the same old things, over and over and over?
 :-X
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 03:19:31 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cities aren't named after the things people do there.

The name of the city wouldn't have been rape.

The term 'sodomy' became used to mean male anal sex *long after* the existence of the two towns.

Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?

You're right about the city
That's for sure: I just came back from San Francisco, and St. Francis it is NOT.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 15, 2018, 03:36:48 PM
Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?

I'm asking the same question.

biro, I think you're conflating his story with Lot, whose "sleeping with his daughters" would be called "date rape" now (since they got him intoxicated in order to get him to impregnate them).

Genesis 19:30-38 (NKJV)
Quote
30 Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. 31 Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 15, 2018, 03:38:13 PM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Something to ponder: your echoing has rendered you deaf, if you weren't before.

Ialmisry did not do something God hates. He was on the receiving end, a fact that has been in evidence looooong ago here, and you ignore because it stands in the way of your pot shots.

biro, there is typically a distinction made between the one initiating divorce and the one on the receiving end, both in civil circles and in ecclesiastical ones.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 03:38:41 PM
Fair enough. But what does this tell us about the nature of the genders and their natural roles if women don't as much need men to protect them?
Not much, at least not prescriptively.

Quote from: 1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Quote from: 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Whatever the proper interpretation of these passages, they seem to be putting a lot of weight on the supposed weakness of women. It seems like Peter and Paul both thought that nature had some prescriptive things to say about gender roles.

Heck, if we somehow, someday develop the technology to enable some kind of same sex conception, how do we know that's not the perfect will of God to enable gay couples to conceive?
Sure, God's will can extrapolate any of our theories, but that's not what he wants. He made it very clear in Scripture. Hebrews and Christians have done far more subversive stuff than gay marriage in our long history and none of it included blessing homosexual unions, on the contrary. No saint suggested that, no Scripture left room for that. If sodomy were something as trivial as pork or Saturday, we would have found out without people who have absolutely nothing to do with the Church telling us so.

Why would they, though? In their day, people only thought of homosexuality as sex (and that often including a power imbalance). Nobody really had a concept of the kind of gay relationships that can exist today. It would be like the Church Fathers briefing us on how to dispose of nuclear waste. Yet it's still something vital for us to understand.

Church history is not dialectic with the world, at least not intrinsically. The only dialectics of the Church are extrinsic: the City of God vs. the City of Man, or Orthodoxy vs. The Religion of the Future.

Christianity is not Gnostic, though. It interacts with things that go on in the world. Episcopal celibacy, Christians being allowed to serve in the military, the rise of monasticism, absolute abolitionism, the theory of a Christian Empire or society, the end of baptizing nude, the end/changing of the love feast, calendar changes, theology of the environment- all of these are changes in Church procedure or doctrine brought about by people's conditions in the world.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 15, 2018, 03:38:49 PM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cities aren't named after the things people do there.

The name of the city wouldn't have been rape.

The term 'sodomy' became used to mean male anal sex *long after* the existence of the two towns.

Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?
Were you in the bedroom to variety?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 15, 2018, 03:40:21 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 15, 2018, 04:04:16 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces. Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.

that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 15, 2018, 04:13:19 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.
Hi father. Are we talking about OC net?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 15, 2018, 06:04:02 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.
Hi father. Are we talking about OC net?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

But seriously - discussions on topics like Homosexuality are not aided by appeals to lower animals.  There are scores of activities seen as "natural" for other mammals and others which would be abhorrent in humans (especially from the POV of the Gospel).  By pointing out the ridiculous (an occasion when the described action is seen in humanity, as an example of why it doesn't work here) my aim is to steer us back to something more helpful (i.e. keeping the inherent dignity of the homosexual human in mind, even if one finds the actions objectionable).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: vorgos on June 15, 2018, 08:45:10 PM
Article by Fr. Lawrence Farley:  https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/metropolitan-kallistos-and-the-wheel/ (https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/metropolitan-kallistos-and-the-wheel/)

Here is an interesting comment to the above that I thought was worth sharing...

Quote
Ralph Sidway says:   
June 14, 2018 at 7:49 pm

Fr Lawrence, at the risk of wearing out my welcome with two (!) comments on this issue, I should like to suggest that one aspect in the discussion of this issue which, as you noted, is “the frontline in the World’s perennial war against the Church,” seems to be missed.

I am speaking of the Cross, and specifically of the truth that those with same-sex attraction have a particularly challenging cross to bear.

It seems to me that a vibrant Orthodox pastoral approach to helping such persons bear their cross well would include recognizing it as a cross, and seeking to engage with the SSA (same-sex afflicted) person to lead them to desire to take up that cross, not to deny it by asserting that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with their desires. Once a person accepts reality and truth, and desires to take up their cross, they have graduated to the level of ‘struggler’ and are quite likely to be blessed by the Lord with moments of grace so as to ‘struggle well’, even to their last breath.

I would even go so far as to say that by not articulating a pastoral theology centered on taking up one’s cross and bearing it, we are inadvertently allowing an enormous obstacle to remain before the SSA person. In our age, any pastoral counsel limited to merely practical demands (“live in celibacy”) will likely fail to convert the SSA person into a cross-bearer and struggler.

One more component of this horribly challenging cross which should be drawn out is the immeasurably glorious crown which awaits those SSA persons who do choose to take up their cross and follow Christ, who choose to struggle. Let us. It forget that Jesus would have been eating and drinking with SSA persons, while still publicly preaching repentance, and not a few would have heard His call and brought myrrh in repentance, falling on their faces to daringly anoint His feet.

It has been said by the Desert Fathers that “in the latter days, those who merely hold to the faith will be counted greater than the early fathers and ascetics who worked miracles and raised the dead.” It seems to me that this is the pastoral opportunity which we must seize and articulate – even thunder from the amvon, as it contains within it all the power of the Gospel, of the Risen and Glorified Lord Himself. Yes, perhaps many SSA persons will reject their cross, but think of the few who will catch a glimpse of the truth and will step out in faith and love for the Lord, and enter into the Arena of martyrdom (for that is what they are being called to!), rather than siding with the lions against the Christians.
Forgive me…
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 15, 2018, 11:02:13 PM
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2018/06/13/the-church-and-homosexuality-a-meditation

From the brilliant article above:
Quote
If, however, we encounter “same sex couples who…knock on the doors of our parishes seeking Christ,” if they truly want Christ, then we must bring them where they will find him: the foot of the Cross. If they are looking for the way home, we must not provide a faulty map. We cannot give a stone to those asking for bread. To those hungry for the imperishable sustenance of the Kingdom, we cannot instead dish out the prodigal son’s pig slop. We know the way to the Father’s house, and sodomy lies in the opposite direction (Lk. 15:16; Lk. 17:29–32).

A propos:
Quote from: Rm 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2018, 11:42:40 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.
First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 15, 2018, 11:55:13 PM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:00:07 AM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Something to ponder: your echoing has rendered you deaf, if you weren't before.

Ialmisry did not do something God hates. He was on the receiving end, a fact that has been in evidence looooong ago here, and you ignore because it stands in the way of your pot shots.

biro, there is typically a distinction made between the one initiating divorce and the one on the receiving end, both in civil circles and in ecclesiastical ones.

That's funny.

Really funny.

Also, no, in most states there is not a distinction between the two asking for divorce. It's called no fault.

Repeat: "I hate divorce." Malachi. :)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:04:07 AM
Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?

I'm asking the same question.

biro, I think you're conflating his story with Lot, whose "sleeping with his daughters" would be called "date rape" now (since they got him intoxicated in order to get him to impregnate them).

Genesis 19:30-38 (NKJV)
Quote
30 Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. 31 Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.

Poor fella, couldn't stop himself from raping his daughters.

Poor adult "victim" of "assault" by teen girls.

That's funny, I've been very drunk in my life, but I never raped anyone, and never got raped.

They raped him?

First time I'm hearing this.

You get more entertaining as you type.

Also, it still has nothing to do with peaceful relationships between consenting gay adults who want to get married.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 12:04:46 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?
you have a dinner date like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKDX-qJaJ08
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:05:12 AM
I wonder if simple belief that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis -19 rooted in fear of the Lord  & understood as sin will automatically be assumed to be termed “hatred” in the near future?

The sin of Sodom (or rather, one of the sins, Ezekiel 16 also mentions their lack of charity) was not just gay sex, it was attempted rape. Isn't that like saying that a story about an ax murderer is really about the ax?

The name of the city would have been rape and not Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cities aren't named after the things people do there.

The name of the city wouldn't have been rape.

The term 'sodomy' became used to mean male anal sex *long after* the existence of the two towns.

Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?
Were you in the bedroom to variety?

What the hell did you just say?

That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 16, 2018, 12:05:31 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?
If i put a two plates in front of you. Would you choose a t-bone steak or a roach.
Regardless of cost. Which would you choose?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:06:58 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

I'm not sure if you noticed your switch in address, from "Lots of people" to "I just showed you."  It demonstrates that you're not, in this case, holding a discussion with me based on what I'm saying, but instead are addressing comments to the collective but acting as if you're addressing my points.  You haven't.  You degrade the actual human beings who are (or claim) homosexual attraction by comparing them to silverbacks.  You can't justify as dignified a human action by saying that it's found among lower primates and other animals.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

One of the points of parenthood is teaching kids not to do this, because it's (a) beneath their dignity, and (b) unsanitary.  By bringing kids into this you undercut your point.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?

Who said I'm shocked?  I'm not "shocked" by anything that humans do; sin is pervasive, the fallen nature of the world nearly inescapable (without Christ).

(BTW: Who said anything about "bugs?"  I brought up eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging poo, and you deflect with non-sequiturs about the benefits of eating bugs.  Ticks carry Lyme Disease and should be destroyed; eating anything out of one another's hair brings health risks.  If you want to make a general point, refute the specific one first.)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:08:00 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?
If i put a two plates in front of you. Would you choose a t-bone stake or a roach.
Regardless of cost. Which would you choose?

I have said I would not eat a roach.

But again, in some cultures, they can.

Again, why are you shocked? Have you traveled at all?

I don't like t-bone.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 12:08:12 AM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Something to ponder: your echoing has rendered you deaf, if you weren't before.

Ialmisry did not do something God hates. He was on the receiving end, a fact that has been in evidence looooong ago here, and you ignore because it stands in the way of your pot shots.

biro, there is typically a distinction made between the one initiating divorce and the one on the receiving end, both in civil circles and in ecclesiastical ones.

That's funny.

Really funny.

Also, no, in most states there is not a distinction between the two asking for divorce. It's called no fault.

Repeat: "I hate divorce." Malachi. :)
and the echo chamber in the wind tunnel drones on...

Father did not say a thing about two asking for divorce, so your ignorance on divorce law bears no relevance.

It takes two to make a marriage. It takes only one to make a divorce.

Repeat: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The Lord.  :(
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:09:55 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

I'm not sure if you noticed your switch in address, from "Lots of people" to "I just showed you."  It demonstrates that you're not, in this case, holding a discussion with me based on what I'm saying, but instead are addressing comments to the collective but acting as if you're addressing my points.  You haven't.  You degrade the actual human beings who are (or claim) homosexual attraction by comparing them to silverbacks.  You can't justify as dignified a human action by saying that it's found among lower primates and other animals.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

One of the points of parenthood is teaching kids not to do this, because it's (a) beneath their dignity, and (b) unsanitary.  By bringing kids into this you undercut your point.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?

Who said I'm shocked?  I'm not "shocked" by anything that humans do; sin is pervasive, the fallen nature of the world nearly inescapable (without Christ).

(BTW: Who said anything about "bugs?"  I brought up eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging poo, and you deflect with non-sequiturs about the benefits of eating bugs.  Ticks carry Lyme Disease and should be destroyed; eating anything out of one another's hair brings health risks.  If you want to make a general point, refute the specific one first.)

I already did.

You are getting tiring. A tick in general slang is a bug. And I said, people probably shouldn't eat bugs, but they sometimes do.

Putting you on Ignore.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 12:10:54 AM
2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

This links with the history of how homosexuality has been viewed in the Christian west. Before it was known that some animals engage in homosexual behaviour it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting because 'not even the animals do it'. After it was discovered that some animals have homosexual encounters it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting 'because they were doing something animals do'. My guess is that if one starts from one's own disgust (or lack of disgust) at homosexuality, one finds evidence to support one's case everywhere--even in the Bible.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:11:29 AM
Also, what about Noah, who slept with his own daughters after the flood?

What is your excuse for that?

I'm asking the same question.

biro, I think you're conflating his story with Lot, whose "sleeping with his daughters" would be called "date rape" now (since they got him intoxicated in order to get him to impregnate them).

Genesis 19:30-38 (NKJV)
Quote
30 Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. 31 Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.

Poor fella, couldn't stop himself from raping his daughters.

Poor adult "victim" of "assault" by teen girls.

That's funny, I've been very drunk in my life, but I never raped anyone, and never got raped.

They raped him?

First time I'm hearing this.

You get more entertaining as you type.

Also, it still has nothing to do with peaceful relationships between consenting gay adults who want to get married.

1. I didn't bring it up, you did - and you mis-referenced it, to boot.  I never thought it had anything to do with this discussion, but you decided to throw it in the mix.

2. Since you brought it up, I decided to clear up your misconceptions.  The text is really clear - they got him so drunk that he didn't know what was going on.  The fact that you've never been that drunk (and neither have I) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  I've met folks who blackout when drunk.  We know cases of both males raping femals and females raping males where one party had zero cognizance of what was happening in the moment.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 12:13:18 AM
2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

This links with the history of how homosexuality has been viewed in the Christian west. Before it was known that some animals engage in homosexual behaviour it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting because 'not even the animals do it'. After it was discovered that some animals have homosexual encounters it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting 'because they were doing something animals do'. My guess is that if one starts from one's own disgust (or lack of disgust) at homosexuality, one finds evidence to support one's case everywhere--even in the Bible.

Thank you.

God created all creatures, and He loves the whole cosmos. (Jn. 3:16)

Really, now, would a little child get damned to Hell if he were walking outside and he saw a bug and tried to eat it?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:15:23 AM
The Bible also says God hates divorce.

Why is Ialmisry still posting here, when he has done something God hates?

Even if he needed it, even if his ex-wife was really bad to him, why is he allowed to continue posting?

Something to ponder.
Something to ponder: your echoing has rendered you deaf, if you weren't before.

Ialmisry did not do something God hates. He was on the receiving end, a fact that has been in evidence looooong ago here, and you ignore because it stands in the way of your pot shots.

biro, there is typically a distinction made between the one initiating divorce and the one on the receiving end, both in civil circles and in ecclesiastical ones.

That's funny.

Really funny.

Also, no, in most states there is not a distinction between the two asking for divorce. It's called no fault.

Repeat: "I hate divorce." Malachi. :)

There is always a distinction in who asks for the divorce versus the one not asking for the divorce.  That is a matter separate from the question of fault, which goes to the underlying justifications for breaking the marital bond (i.e. before the advent of "no fault" divorce, one party had to be determined to have violated the covenant and been "at fault" - which was also not necessarily connected to the person asking for the divorce, since the judge was free to find fault with the petitioner).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 16, 2018, 12:20:32 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?
If i put a two plates in front of you. Would you choose a t-bone stake or a roach.
Regardless of cost. Which would you choose?

I have said I would not eat a roach.

But again, in some cultures, they can.

Again, why are you shocked? Have you traveled at all?

I don't like t-bone.
If one is starving than I can see themselves lowered to the level of survivor mode. But, i definitely don't see anyone choosing it if its on the menu.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

This links with the history of how homosexuality has been viewed in the Christian west. Before it was known that some animals engage in homosexual behaviour it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting because 'not even the animals do it'. After it was discovered that some animals have homosexual encounters it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting 'because they were doing something animals do'.

I can see how this would be incredibly frustrating.  There are times when the one is applicable (i.e. there are gross depravities that are not observed in the animal kingdom that humans are capable of, like Nuclear War), and other times when the other is applicable (i.e. there are creatures which engage in cannibalism).  Flip-flopping, though, seems like a cheap approach. 

That's why I'm not making either argument - I'm saying that comparisons (favorable or unfavorable) inherently reduce the dignity of the human.  I suppose you could call it a theanthropocentric approach - we may be creatures, but the image of God changes our point of comparative reference.

My guess is that if one starts from one's own disgust (or lack of disgust) at homosexuality, one finds evidence to support one's case everywhere--even in the Bible.

Those who wish to find causes for disgust in anything - polygamy, monogamy, sex of any kind, asexuality, etc. - can find them.

The Scripture is so richly adorned that one can find justification for nearly anything they want if they're willing to take them out of the larger context of the Tradition of the Church.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:22:59 AM
2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

This links with the history of how homosexuality has been viewed in the Christian west. Before it was known that some animals engage in homosexual behaviour it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting because 'not even the animals do it'. After it was discovered that some animals have homosexual encounters it was argued that humans who did so were disgusting 'because they were doing something animals do'. My guess is that if one starts from one's own disgust (or lack of disgust) at homosexuality, one finds evidence to support one's case everywhere--even in the Bible.

Thank you. 

You should thank him for demonstrating an ability to engage in the discussion in a way that allows for respectful dialogue.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 16, 2018, 12:27:46 AM
Also, male silverback apes have been observed having sex with younger males. Sex is not just for reproduction. It also enforces pack social order. 

I'm not sure that using nature's equivalent of prison rape as an example is exactly going to help.

Please explain how that is rape.

Until recently, no one would admit it even happens.

These are lower animals. Supposedly, they don't even have will.  ::)

1. Prison rape occurs to enforce pack social order.

2. Comparing human beings to lower primates in order to justify the human behavior only debases the human, unless you're honestly going to justify eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging feces as being acceptable human behavior.

Nice try.

Lots of people have said homosexual behavior *never* occurs in nature.

I just showed you that it does.

I'm not sure if you noticed your switch in address, from "Lots of people" to "I just showed you."  It demonstrates that you're not, in this case, holding a discussion with me based on what I'm saying, but instead are addressing comments to the collective but acting as if you're addressing my points.  You haven't.  You degrade the actual human beings who are (or claim) homosexual attraction by comparing them to silverbacks.  You can't justify as dignified a human action by saying that it's found among lower primates and other animals.

Besides, eating bugs and throwing poo are things that little infants are allowed to do - or at least manage to get away with them a few times, when they're too young to know any better.

One of the points of parenthood is teaching kids not to do this, because it's (a) beneath their dignity, and (b) unsanitary.  By bringing kids into this you undercut your point.

I heard a major league baseball catcher brag about how he eats bugs, when his teammates would ask him to, on bets.

Also, there are increasing articles these days about how people can or should eat bugs.

They probably shouldn't, but google it anyway. Supposedly, in Mexico, people eat ants at the movie theater, the way Americans snack on popcorn. At my local candy store, you can buy dead bugs in boxes.

My coworker once told me she ate a roach, and she thought it tasted good.

I'd never do that, but why are you shocked?

Who said I'm shocked?  I'm not "shocked" by anything that humans do; sin is pervasive, the fallen nature of the world nearly inescapable (without Christ).

(BTW: Who said anything about "bugs?"  I brought up eating ticks out of each other's hair and flinging poo, and you deflect with non-sequiturs about the benefits of eating bugs.  Ticks carry Lyme Disease and should be destroyed; eating anything out of one another's hair brings health risks.  If you want to make a general point, refute the specific one first.)

I already did. 

Show me where, because it's not evident (and, based on the rest of the thread, I'm not the only one missing it).

You are getting tiring.

If you don't like defending your position, then don't.  But this is a discussion forum, so if you're going to make points that folks disagree with, be prepared for the engagement.

A tick in general slang is a bug.

Never heard it used that way.

And I said, people probably shouldn't eat bugs, but they sometimes do.

Occasional deviations from the norm do not change the norm.

Putting you on Ignore. 

There are simpler ways of conceding that you're unwilling to engage in the discussion.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 16, 2018, 12:50:32 AM
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is walking a tight rope with a lot of his comments.  The church as a whole is never going to accept homosexual behavior.  He can dance around it all he wants but, it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 01:09:33 AM
and the echo chamber in the wind tunnel drones on...

I think that's due to the nature of the discussion. Neither 'side' is really listening to the other. What we ought to be interested in is why people feel the way they do not that they feel that way.

In a sense the rules of the forum stack the deck against those who do not condemn homosexual behaviour. Anyone who supports the Church's position can refer simply to scripture and tradition without adding further justification. This is not the case for those who seek change.

Since this thread is presumably supposed to be about gay marriage, perhaps I can ask if any of us who have been living in a committed relationship with a partner, either of the opposite or the same sex, has not found themselves becoming less selfish and more caring, more willing to compromise and consider the welfare of one's partner, their relatives and friends. Assuming the answer is 'no', are self-giving and caring for others things the Church wishes to foster or to impede?

I'm not suggesting the Church needs to introduce a same-sex wedding ceremony. I find the idea appalling. But I am suggesting that perhaps some sort of 'economia' that turns a blind eye to (or even quietly supports) gay/lesbian couples may be a greater good. 


Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Brilko on June 16, 2018, 01:36:05 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 04:12:37 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

OK. So you believe that the scripture needs no interpretation and that tradition has never changed. In order to have a real dialogue with you one would have to argue against these points. That's something I leave up to others, though I believe history proves you wrong on both of these assumptions.

But let's all agree to keep the nifty robes.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 16, 2018, 08:21:10 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

This is of course entirely correct.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 16, 2018, 09:11:09 AM


I think that's due to the nature of the discussion. Neither 'side' is really listening to the other. What we ought to be interested in is why people feel the way they do not that they feel that way.



The Church's tradition and God don't frankly care about what your feelings are on the matter.  To approach matters of doctrine from feelings is wrong. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 16, 2018, 09:13:00 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

OK. So you believe that the scripture needs no interpretation and that tradition has never changed. In order to have a real dialogue with you one would have to argue against these points. That's something I leave up to others, though I believe history proves you wrong on both of these assumptions.

But let's all agree to keep the nifty robes.

What has specifically changed in the church's tradition with regards to sexual morality that is an analogue to what we are discussing here?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 10:24:15 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

OK. So you believe that the scripture needs no interpretation and that tradition has never changed. In order to have a real dialogue with you one would have to argue against these points. That's something I leave up to others, though I believe history proves you wrong on both of these assumptions.

But let's all agree to keep the nifty robes.

What has specifically changed in the church's tradition with regards to sexual morality that is an analogue to what we are discussing here?

You might want to have a look at Eve Levin's fairly exhaustive study of Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian penitential handbooks, canon law and other documents in Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Cornell Univ. Press, 1989). Levin often notes a difference between what the early Church Fathers write and what Slavic canonists of the time write--and the differences between what she describes and what the Church (at least in Finland) expects of its parishioners today are striking. To take just one example from page 200, "According to St Basil. this offense [sodomy] carried a penalty of penance for fifteen years, as did adultery. Slavic canonists preferred the reduced penance of two or three years of fasting and prayer prescribed by St. John the Penitent."

Levin's chapter headings are: The Ecclesiastical Image of Sexuality, Marriage, Incest, Illicit Sex, Rape, Sex and the Clergy. So she is by no means pleading a special case for the acceptance of homosexuality, but I picked the quote as it refers to sodomy. Still, I'm perhaps wrong in assuming that adulterers in the Church today aren't expected to do 15 years of penance or even fast for two or three.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 16, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

OK. So you believe that the scripture needs no interpretation and that tradition has never changed. In order to have a real dialogue with you one would have to argue against these points. That's something I leave up to others, though I believe history proves you wrong on both of these assumptions.

But let's all agree to keep the nifty robes.

What has specifically changed in the church's tradition with regards to sexual morality that is an analogue to what we are discussing here?

You might want to have a look at Eve Levin's fairly exhaustive study of Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian penitential handbooks, canon law and other documents in Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Cornell Univ. Press, 1989). Levin often notes a difference between what the early Church Fathers write and what Slavic canonists of the time write--and the differences between what she describes and what the Church (at least in Finland) expects of its parishioners today are striking. To take just one example from page 200, "According to St Basil. this offense [sodomy] carried a penalty of penance for fifteen years, as did adultery. Slavic canonists preferred the reduced penance of two or three years of fasting and prayer prescribed by St. John the Penitent."

Levin's chapter headings are: The Ecclesiastical Image of Sexuality, Marriage, Incest, Illicit Sex, Rape, Sex and the Clergy. So she is by no means pleading a special case for the acceptance of homosexuality, but I picked the quote as it refers to sodomy. Still, I'm perhaps wrong in assuming that adulterers in the Church today aren't expected to do 15 years of penance or even fast for two or three.

It refers to sodomy, not adulterers, yet both misses the mark in sin, your also confusing oikonomia with outright changing things to approve a very mortal sin in the Church. lessening the penance is much different than tolerance.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 16, 2018, 10:58:56 AM
Well, lessening the penance is a form of tolerance, but it's partial rather than total. The thing is total tolerance cannot be.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 16, 2018, 11:06:30 AM
Well, lessening the penance is a form of tolerance, but it's partial rather than total. The thing is total tolerance cannot be.

What I guess I am trying to say it mercy, rather than total approval.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 16, 2018, 11:20:46 AM


I think that's due to the nature of the discussion. Neither 'side' is really listening to the other. What we ought to be interested in is why people feel the way they do not that they feel that way.



The Church's tradition and God don't frankly care about what your feelings are on the matter.  To approach matters of doctrine from feelings is wrong.

This, to much FEELINGS and not enough logic. We gave them an inch already, and its been over a mile and no signs of them stopping their push of degeneracy on society.

To the person who asked if i had kids, yes i do. Young adults who are.bombarded at school, tv, the internet about how they should accept things that are degenerate. Ive tried to raise them to see the world how it is, and what to expect.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 16, 2018, 11:30:50 AM
This, to much FEELINGS and not enough logic. We gave them an inch already, and its been over a mile and no signs of them stopping their push of degeneracy on society.
No, they will not stop. Now they are encouraging pre pubescent children to come out and to cross dress (e.g. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/coming-next-woke-pederasty). A decade ago we were told that they just wanted same sex civil unions... There must never be any compromise with sin or with unrepentant sinners.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 01:10:52 PM
To the person who asked if i had kids, yes i do. Young adults who are.bombarded at school, tv, the internet about how they should accept things that are degenerate. Ive tried to raise them to see the world how it is, and what to expect.

If you have children in school the school board is supposed to serve you, not let teachers hold your kids captive. If you're concerned about what your children are being taught, ask to see the curriculum and gather as many facts as you can. If there are lessons you object to it's probable that many other parents feel the same way. Your children's school probably has a parents-teachers association; this would be a good group to work through initially as you would find active parents there. If you can bring together enough concerned parents, attend a school board meeting as a group to bring up your complaints. It might be helpful to contact the media. There are several videos of parents speaking against curricula that stand in opposition to their values available on YouTube. Good luck!

As for tv, if you are in the US your local stations will have to have a broadcasting license. Find out when it comes up for renewal and send the authorities a list of the complaints you have previously sent to the station about their programing.

When it comes to the internet, I think it's fair to say that every parent has the right--responsibility--to monitor what their children are doing when they sit before the screen.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jakoblaj on June 16, 2018, 02:13:13 PM
I hate the fact that I am gay.  I hate that I will never have a family.  I hate that I am forced to live a life of chastity when I feel no call towards that life whatsoever.  I hate the way that I have been treated by some parish members. 

Life is daunting and death is daunting.

Over the last few weeks with the number of posts and comments about gay people the rhetoric used is very disappointing to me.  I don't post very often on here, but I have been a very frequent visitor over the last four years and I don't know why I keep visiting.  It becomes very hard to digest.   
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 02:33:35 PM
Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 16, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
I hate the fact that I am gay.  I hate that I will never have a family.  I hate that I am forced to live a life of chastity when I feel no call towards that life whatsoever.  I hate the way that I have been treated by some parish members. 

Life is daunting and death is daunting.

Over the last few weeks with the number of posts and comments about gay people the rhetoric used is very disappointing to me.  I don't post very often on here, but I have been a very frequent visitor over the last four years and I don't know why I keep visiting.  It becomes very hard to digest.   

Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 16, 2018, 03:41:44 PM
I hate the fact that I am gay.  I hate that I will never have a family.  I hate that I am forced to live a life of chastity when I feel no call towards that life whatsoever.  I hate the way that I have been treated by some parish members. 
There's only one solution for the brokenness of our sinful humanity: repentance and conversion of life.

Lord, have mercy.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jakoblaj on June 16, 2018, 03:47:40 PM

There's only one solution for the brokenness of our sinful humanity: repentance and conversion of life.

Lord, have mercy.

Yes, I am quite aware. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 16, 2018, 04:04:04 PM
I read the Metropolitan's article in his voice and it took me two hours to read.

ROFL!    ;D  ;D

Just found this on Quotable Quotes...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 16, 2018, 04:04:54 PM

There's only one solution for the brokenness of our sinful humanity: repentance and conversion of life.

Lord, have mercy.

Yes, I am quite aware.

Please be aware that I love you as a fellow human being and a fellow Orthodox Christian and will pray for you.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 05:36:37 PM
Well, lessening the penance is a form of tolerance, but it's partial rather than total. The thing is total tolerance cannot be.
They do not want tolerance. They demand acceptance and embrace.

(I refer to those pushing the pink agenda, not FinnJames).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jakoblaj on June 16, 2018, 05:38:14 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.

And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 05:40:22 PM

There's only one solution for the brokenness of our sinful humanity: repentance and conversion of life.

Lord, have mercy.

Yes, I am quite aware.

Please be aware that I love you as a fellow human being and a fellow Orthodox Christian and will pray for you.
Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 16, 2018, 05:41:25 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.

that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 16, 2018, 05:43:17 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.

And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.

FWIW (which I know isn't much), I'm so sorry that all this is happening to you :( No need to apologize for anything.

I'll be praying.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 16, 2018, 05:44:21 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.


And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.
loosely quoting a friend of mine :” I’m ok with gays having gay sex, but why would any sane person seek moral guidance from men in Black skirts is beyond me.”
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 16, 2018, 05:58:05 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.


And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.
loosely quoting a friend of mine :” I’m ok with gays having gay sex, but why would any sane person seek moral guidance from men in Black skirts is beyond me.”

But Marilyn Manson is a man in a black skirt and I've gotten a lot of moral guidance from him :'(




No, not really. I'm not even an MM fan. I wonder how many people in this thread will take that seriously.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 16, 2018, 06:17:31 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.


And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.
loosely quoting a friend of mine :” I’m ok with gays having gay sex, but why would any sane person seek moral guidance from men in Black skirts is beyond me.”

But Marilyn Manson is a man in a black skirt and I've gotten a lot of moral guidance from him :'(




No, not really. I'm not even an MM fan. I wonder how many people in this thread will take that seriously.
him or the good fathers at the AOIUSA . Same thing for some of us.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sethrak on June 16, 2018, 06:38:48 PM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

You'r right about that ~ if there was no Resurrection there is no Christianity ~ but of course the Resurrection and all else is True ``` We went to see and follow Christ ~ we went back and told our family and friends and went again ~ as did our cousins ~ we were there at Pentecost ~ the Apostles came to us ~ in our home countries ~ taught and did wonderful things ~ and we killed them ~ well ~ Our then king had them tortured ~ ( one Apostle of Christ was flayed alive ~ but the would not curse and deny The Christ ~ so the torture continued until they died ~ but we believed and worshiped the Lord as did our children and our children's children ~ until a wonderful thing happened ~ well ~ that is another story ```

Glory to God





seth
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Opus118 on June 16, 2018, 06:50:08 PM
I went through this thread, and in my mind (or what is left of it), the Fr. Arida and homosexuality thread is more thoughtful and informative.
I reread Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's Foreword. It seemed a bit disorganized to me, but I did not see anything wrong with it.
I have now read Father Andrew Louth's editorial. I really liked it. In particular, starting at the last paragraph on page 15 (bottom right hand corner) to the end. This closely matches my feelings.
A person in my lab got a phone call recently and started crying and gagging and many other utterances which made it clear to me that someone very close  him died. This went on for about 15 minutes. He needed to be hugged, he needed to be caressed and spoken to softly with understanding and love and caring.  This is what I think God would want me to do but I failed because of what I perceived as current societal norms. I still feel awful about it. I should not care what other people think.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 10:06:47 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.
First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 10:08:01 PM


Continue on, You are struggling, God loves you, there many homosexual who took up the cross, and contained, this issue is very divisive, and I admit, I can admit I can be very harsh at times, out of preserving Christ, and Church from any innovations of change, not out of hate for you. You must rememberyour salvation is most important than any earthly pleasure, that also goes for straight people vices too. For some reason God has called you to the true faith, continue on, it not out of hate we oppose gay marriage but doctrine of creeds without innovation.


And I in no way agree with the view that the church should innovate and be pressured to allow gay marriage.  I understand completely the reasons for staying with Tradition.  I don't want anyone to misconstrue my post and think I was implying that I would have that.  There is a reason I am still in the church, confessing and working towards repentance like any other Orthodox Christian.  (Which is humorous that some posters may think they need to remind me of that...oy...)

Luckily, I was granted the cross of being gay and having mental health issues...so much for the empty platitude that God does not give us more than we can handle.  I suppose what I was getting at was that the vitriolic language used when discussing gay persons, in and out of the church, does more harm than good.  And I, of course can not speak for every gay person in the church, but I know that when I read it is is very disheartening and discouraging.  For example, being called a sodomite (even when not having participated in sexual acts).  I apologize for being all over the place and fragment-y in this post, I am too exhausted to formulate thoughts...haha.
loosely quoting a friend of mine :” I’m ok with gays having gay sex, but why would any sane person seek moral guidance from men in Black skirts is beyond me.”
is he another fool for Marx?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 16, 2018, 10:13:29 PM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

Which is why we stone to death women who do not have the tokens of virginity found in them after their wedding night. Also, we still stone to death every person who commits every crime found in Leviticus.

Oh wait, we don't do that. Only barbaric people do.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 16, 2018, 10:24:39 PM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

Which is why we stone to death women who do not have the tokens of virginity found in them after their wedding night. Also, we still stone to death every person who commits every crime found in Leviticus.

Oh wait, we don't do that. Only barbaric people do.
(https://dc95wa4w5yhv.cloudfront.net/image-cache/ten-commandments-in-the-new-testament_833_460_80_c1.jpg)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 16, 2018, 10:39:14 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 16, 2018, 11:38:56 PM
Sorry for the botched quote tags in the second half of the post. I had to hit "submit" as I was walking out the door and I just now got back in.

Cleaned up:

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?

And:

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 16, 2018, 11:46:58 PM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

I've been mulling the above over while the conversation here went on. It seems like an expression the 'house of cards' theory of the Church--one little shift and the whole house comes tumbling down. That might explain why some find or would find the presence of openly gay/lesbian people in their congregation such an existential threat: it endangers their own faith. After all, who doesn't know at least one person who joined the Orthodox Church because the X church down the street they were a member of started offering same-sex weddings? So those of us with homosexual inclinations have to keep a low profile so as not to ruin Christianity for our weaker brothers and sisters who are not so tempted. Doing this out of love for them is perhaps one of the ways we carry our cross.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 12:11:47 AM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
I've heard the same argument, more convincingly, from adulterers.

The answer is still NO.
First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.
And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Ptolemy's Geographia isn't in the OT nor the NT.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 17, 2018, 12:16:08 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

I've been mulling the above over while the conversation here went on. It seems like an expression the 'house of cards' theory of the Church--one little shift and the whole house comes tumbling down. That might explain why some find or would find the presence of openly gay/lesbian people in their congregation such an existential threat: it endangers their own faith. After all, who doesn't know at least one person who joined the Orthodox Church because the X church down the street they were a member of started offering same-sex weddings? So those of us with homosexual inclinations have to keep a low profile so as not to ruin Christianity for our weaker brothers and sisters who are not so tempted. Doing this out of love for them is perhaps one of the ways we carry our cross.

Most of the converts I know joined because their previous churches were not right-wing enough. They were all, "I used to be an Episcopalian, but then they kinda went a little too far." You know that's code words for "they accept gay people and ordain women."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 17, 2018, 12:46:55 AM
Bringing Sister Vassa into the discussion may be like waving a red flag in front of a bull for some, but here's a link to a podcast where she talks about reactions to Met. Ware's foreword and Fr. Louth's contribution to the issue of The Wheel that the OP has in mind. The discussion of this topic begins around 18:30 in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z88Skoifxco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z88Skoifxco)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 17, 2018, 01:42:54 AM
Most of the converts I know joined because their previous churches were not right-wing enough. They were all, "I used to be an Episcopalian, but then they kinda went a little too far." You know that's code words for "they accept gay people and ordain women."
Never met such a person, sounds like an American problem.

I've been mulling the above over while the conversation here went on. It seems like an expression the 'house of cards' theory of the Church--one little shift and the whole house comes tumbling down. That might explain why some find or would find the presence of openly gay/lesbian people in their congregation such an existential threat: it endangers their own faith. After all, who doesn't know at least one person who joined the Orthodox Church because the X church down the street they were a member of started offering same-sex weddings? So those of us with homosexual inclinations have to keep a low profile so as not to ruin Christianity for our weaker brothers and sisters who are not so tempted. Doing this out of love for them is perhaps one of the ways we carry our cross.
That's very noble of yours, but in your shoes I'd give them a reality shock... If having a gay brother in faith doesn't do the job, the first clerical scandal will.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 17, 2018, 02:09:47 AM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
I've heard the same argument, more convincingly, from adulterers.

The answer is still NO.

By adulterers, do you mean people cheating on their spouses or unmarried people cohabiting? Either way, I'm not sure it has that much application to what I'm talking about.

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Ok, so anal sex is allowed but not oral? ??? Neither one is procreative, which I thought was the main traditional Orthodox objection.

Either way, you admit that the "wall socket" argument is a non-starter.

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.

I don't think you have any warrant for saying that other than blunt assertion. Whatever happened to God having actual reasons for what He commands?

that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Ptolemy's Geographia isn't in the OT nor the NT.

No, but the authors of the OT were men of their day who most likely accepted the common beliefs. Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, et al. only came on the scene as the OT was finishing up or already done.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 17, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?


Round and round we go, where it stops no genderless non binary pansexual furry z-x Kin, will know.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 17, 2018, 10:00:23 AM
Is the scripture and tradition right or wrong? If the scripture and the tradition are wrong, there is no Church. There’s a club of guys in nifty robes playing pretend. If the scripture and tradition are correct, the Church must hold to it.

I've been mulling the above over while the conversation here went on. It seems like an expression the 'house of cards' theory of the Church--one little shift and the whole house comes tumbling down. That might explain why some find or would find the presence of openly gay/lesbian people in their congregation such an existential threat: it endangers their own faith. After all, who doesn't know at least one person who joined the Orthodox Church because the X church down the street they were a member of started offering same-sex weddings? So those of us with homosexual inclinations have to keep a low profile so as not to ruin Christianity for our weaker brothers and sisters who are not so tempted. Doing this out of love for them is perhaps one of the ways we carry our cross.

Most of the converts I know joined because their previous churches were not right-wing enough. They were all, "I used to be an Episcopalian, but then they kinda went a little too far." You know that's code words for "they accept gay people and ordain women."

Indeed, but I tried to be an Episcopalian at a conservative parish; the problem was their Eucharist was literally poison.   Every time I had it I upset my stomach.  In contrast partaking of the Orthodox Eucharist has on several occasions delivered me from severe physical or mental pain.

But if we abandon the ancient faith, which we would do if we performed homosexual marriage or ordained homosexual priests, or female priests, I think our Eucharist might become toxic as well.  We would cease to be the Church, and whatever Continuing Orthodox breakaway group or groups that resulted would be the Church.

Fortunately I’m not worried about this, since the overwhelming majority of Orthodox are opposed to gay marriage (the largest EO church is the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest OO church is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and I can conceive of no scenario other than a Bolshevik or Derg revival and a fake Living Church kind of setup, which would be offset by the parishes abroad, for instance, in ROCOR), going for that. 

I would note the Orthodox church does accept homosexual people, we love them, we simply object to sexual relations between them and also to misogyny, if it is a factor in their preference (if they are homosexual due to a hatred of the opposite sex). 

Lastly, the case you raise about not being able to hug a grieving social worker due to social norms is another issue, and I would argue that it is actually the increase in homosexuality that makes people of the same sex less comfortable hugging or being close in a non-sexual manner. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 17, 2018, 02:17:12 PM
I would note the Orthodox church does accept homosexual people, we love them, we simply object to sexual relations between them and also to misogyny, if it is a factor in their preference (if they are homosexual due to a hatred of the opposite sex).   

Spewing a little gratuitous venom with your 'love' again, I see.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 17, 2018, 02:40:03 PM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 17, 2018, 03:38:00 PM
I would note the Orthodox church does accept homosexual people, we love them, we simply object to sexual relations between them and also to misogyny, if it is a factor in their preference (if they are homosexual due to a hatred of the opposite sex).   

Spewing a little gratuitous venom with your 'love' again, I see.

No, rather, I was referring to some homosexuals, who do actually hate the opposite sex, and admit as much; we see this in some Lesbian literature today.  The ancient church also recognized it; there is a canon in the Pedalion which prohibits anyone becoming a monk who has a contempt for the opposite sex or a loathing for the idea of sex and marriage in general.   This is what I was referring to.

I would note that the love I extend to homosexuals is like the love I extend to adulterers: I love them according to their person, but I abhorr their conduct.  For that matter, to the extent that I am a terrible and repulsive sinner, who of late has developed a new vice of being miserly, a new passion I have to confront, I expect you and other Christians to abhorr my sins, while loving me.

There are churches I should add, those of the “prosperity gospel”, which would have me believe my newfound miserliness and reignited avarice are not sinful at all, and they are on a par with how, for example, the mainline Protestant churches are treating the issue of homosexuality.  I don’t want to be told that my flaws are good, but rather to find exhortation and support in suppressing these passions, so I don’t obsess over how much money I have, et cetera, particularly given the degree to which I have been blessed and the extent of destitution I briefly experienced due to the issues surrounding the death of my late father.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 17, 2018, 03:44:53 PM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.

On this point, the ancient canons apply precisely the same canonical penalties to married couples that engage in sodomy, as persons of the same sex.  Sodomy is prohibited in both cases and treated as one sin by St. John the Faster, who does not differentiate between married couples or homosexuals with regards to the offense, but rather in both cases imposes excommunication that is roughly twice as long as excommunication for adultery; it works out to be something more than 15 years.  I don’t believe the severe penances suggested by St. John the Faster should be routinely, if ever, employed by the Church, except perhaps in the most extreme cases where there might be some aggravating element (since his canon does not, for example, differentiate between pederasty and homosexuality between consenting adults), but they do provide an invaluable insight into how the Fathers viewed these sins.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 04:51:28 PM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.

On this point, the ancient canons apply precisely the same canonical penalties to married couples that engage in sodomy, as persons of the same sex.  Sodomy is prohibited in both cases and treated as one sin by St. John the Faster, who does not differentiate between married couples or homosexuals with regards to the offense, but rather in both cases imposes excommunication that is roughly twice as long as excommunication for adultery; it works out to be something more than 15 years.  I don’t believe the severe penances suggested by St. John the Faster should be routinely, if ever, employed by the Church, except perhaps in the most extreme cases where there might be some aggravating element (since his canon does not, for example, differentiate between pederasty and homosexuality between consenting adults), but they do provide an invaluable insight into how the Fathers viewed these sins.
"sodomy" isn't an Orthodox canonical term: it doesn't enter the Orthodox world until Peter adopted western ways.

St. John the Faster's canons, as the Pedalion admits, were never adopted with Ecumenical sanction. What insight does that fact given into the views of the Fathers?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 17, 2018, 04:53:10 PM
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Which is why it can hardly be considered sex, since it's nothing but one using the other in a masturbatory act.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 04:54:20 PM
There are churches I should add, those of the “prosperity gospel”, which would have me believe my newfound miserliness and reignited avarice are not sinful at all, and they are on a par with how, for example, the mainline Protestant churches are treating the issue of homosexuality.  I don’t want to be told that my flaws are good, but rather to find exhortation and support in suppressing these passions,
good comparison.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 04:55:39 PM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.
Never mind that homosexuals cannot do the marital act.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Luke on June 17, 2018, 05:15:46 PM
Another good article:  https://orthodoxlife.org/contemporary-issues/kallistos-ware-homosexuality-humphrey/ (https://orthodoxlife.org/contemporary-issues/kallistos-ware-homosexuality-humphrey/)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 17, 2018, 05:23:19 PM
There are churches I should add, those of the “prosperity gospel”, which would have me believe my newfound miserliness and reignited avarice are not sinful at all, and they are on a par with how, for example, the mainline Protestant churches are treating the issue of homosexuality.  I don’t want to be told that my flaws are good, but rather to find exhortation and support in suppressing these
+1
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 05:37:54 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
I've heard the same argument, more convincingly, from adulterers.

The answer is still NO.

By adulterers, do you mean people cheating on their spouses or unmarried people cohabiting? Either way, I'm not sure it has that much application to what I'm talking about.
The Church is.

btw, someone here we have a thread on this topic, with an article by the New York Times about redefining marriage beyond the requirement of opposite sexes-most same sex couples saying that fidelity was not part of the deal.
First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Ok, so anal sex is allowed but not oral? ??? Neither one is procreative, which I thought was the main traditional Orthodox objection.

Either way, you admit that the "wall socket" argument is a non-starter.
Not taking HV for authority, I "admit' nothing of the kind.

The main Orthodox objection is God "created them from the beginning male and female." Not unisex.

The plug does not have to be 24/7 in the socket. Just be able to go in and work when it does so. Even if it doesn't work, the plug works as a socket protector. Two sockets do nothing and two plugs are useless for anything.
And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.

I don't think you have any warrant for saying that other than blunt assertion. Whatever happened to God having actual reasons for what He commands?
He is His reason. Don't let Aquinas fool you.

There are no two Fathers in the Most Holy Trinity, any more than there are two Sons or two Spirits.
that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Ptolemy's Geographia isn't in the OT nor the NT.

No, but the authors of the OT were men of their day who most likely accepted the common beliefs. Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, et al. only came on the scene as the OT was finishing up or already done.
"It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth"-Isaiah 40:22 8th century B.C.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 17, 2018, 06:21:39 PM
Quote
I don't advocate extramarital sex for anybody.

Well, that's the key, there is no such thing as homossexual ''marriage'', a marriage is exclusively between man and woman,

Is that so? How do you figure?
He Who instituted and created it so defined it. See St. Matthew's Gospel.

Can we really take that much from "male and female He created them," though? I'm not sure.
The Church is.

Or have the specific questions that I'm asking just never come up before?
No matter how convoluted and clever the question, the answer is still NO.

What's convoluted about, "these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
I've heard the same argument, more convincingly, from adulterers.

The answer is still NO.

By adulterers, do you mean people cheating on their spouses or unmarried people cohabiting? Either way, I'm not sure it has that much application to what I'm talking about.
The Church is.

Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...

btw, someone here we have a thread on this topic, with an article by the New York Times about redefining marriage beyond the requirement of opposite sexes-most same sex couples saying that fidelity was not part of the deal.

How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity? And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?

First of all, the immediate context is the incongruity of divorce in God's purpose, which would be true for both straight and gay divorces.
Since God has no purpose for "gay marriage," the issue of gay divorce does not come up (btw, IL and NY both had "gay divorce" before "gay marriage").
Second, I wouldn't expect Jesus to mention gay marriage for the same reason we don't find Him calling for the emancipation of all slaves, either His audience was apparently not ready for it or it just wasn't yet germane to His mission.
He does talk about marriage, divorce, freedom and slavery. He does not mention Adam and Steve at all.

Somebody actually unironically using the "Adam and Steve" meme in 2018, huh? Are you trying to look like cartoon character?
Somebody can't take a simple answer. Perhaps a cartoon will help.
(http://bcnza.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/plugs.jpg)

Aren't you the guy who used to argue that anal sex is fine between married straight people?
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Ok, so anal sex is allowed but not oral? ??? Neither one is procreative, which I thought was the main traditional Orthodox objection.

Either way, you admit that the "wall socket" argument is a non-starter.
Not taking HV for authority, I "admit' nothing of the kind.

The main Orthodox objection is God "created them from the beginning male and female." Not unisex.

The plug does not have to be 24/7 in the socket. Just be able to go in and work when it does so. Even if it doesn't work, the plug works as a socket protector. Two sockets do nothing and two plugs are useless for anything.

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married. Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.

And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

And, no, at most Christ only implies the need for universal abolition. It was up to later generations to connect the dots.
and the dots we are talking about do not connect, no matter how much you try to force it.

I don't think you have any warrant for saying that other than blunt assertion. Whatever happened to God having actual reasons for what He commands?
He is His reason. Don't let Aquinas fool you.

Ok. But His commands should still evidence some of that reason.

There are no two Fathers in the Most Holy Trinity, any more than there are two Sons or two Spirits.

Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?

that's what generates offspring.
So, infertility should come with a mandatory "do not marry" tag even for straight people?
Abraham and Sarah conceived. Abraham and Lot never would.

The fact that a fertility test would be mandatory for straight people and superfluous for homosexuals undermines your point.

Abraham and Lot could if God wanted them to. If God didn't want it, Abraham and Sarah would never have conceived and neither would a young, otherwise fertile straight couple.
God never wanted Abraham and Lot to conceive, and He doesn't want Joe and Bruce to try.

Not a warranted presumption.
Not a presumption at all. A statement of absolute fact.

This week in SF I saw shops for women's shoes that had flood bait signs announcing with arrogance trying to pass itself off as pride that they also had men's sizes. Some should take the hint: if the shoe doesn't fit....

Much like the absolute fact that the Earth is flat (OT not NT, I know)?
Ptolemy's Geographia isn't in the OT nor the NT.

No, but the authors of the OT were men of their day who most likely accepted the common beliefs. Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, et al. only came on the scene as the OT was finishing up or already done.
"It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth"-Isaiah 40:22 8th century B.C.

Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 17, 2018, 10:15:19 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Ok. But His commands should still evidence some of that reason.
To satisfy the curiosity of your feeble mind?

Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 18, 2018, 12:21:06 AM
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Which is why it can hardly be considered sex, since it's nothing but one using the other in a masturbatory act.

+1   And we all know how masturbators are driven from the Church and loathed by the people today, don't we?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 18, 2018, 10:09:13 AM
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Which is why it can hardly be considered sex, since it's nothing but one using the other in a masturbatory act.

+1   And we all know how masturbators are driven from the Church and loathed by the people today, don't we?

No, but they are still called to confession and repentance.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 18, 2018, 10:10:14 AM
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

ROFL, This is normal to you? This is what the church should accept as "normal"? What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies? That'll be a sight to see at the liturgy, but it'll be normal...rofl
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 18, 2018, 11:52:28 AM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.

On this point, the ancient canons apply precisely the same canonical penalties to married couples that engage in sodomy, as persons of the same sex.  Sodomy is prohibited in both cases and treated as one sin by St. John the Faster, who does not differentiate between married couples or homosexuals with regards to the offense, but rather in both cases imposes excommunication that is roughly twice as long as excommunication for adultery; it works out to be something more than 15 years.  I don’t believe the severe penances suggested by St. John the Faster should be routinely, if ever, employed by the Church, except perhaps in the most extreme cases where there might be some aggravating element (since his canon does not, for example, differentiate between pederasty and homosexuality between consenting adults), but they do provide an invaluable insight into how the Fathers viewed these sins.

Again, we never exercise these penalties today. Never even ask. So, your argument is invalid.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 11:56:16 AM
I'm also the guy who has pointed out that according to homosexuals' stated preference, anal sex loses out to oral sex.

Which is why it can hardly be considered sex, since it's nothing but one using the other in a masturbatory act.
Sorry, as much as I don't take Humanae Vitae as an authority, I don't take Bill Clinton as one either.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sharbel on June 18, 2018, 11:58:10 AM
And we all know how masturbators are driven from the Church and loathed by the people today, don't we?
If they claim their unrepentant relationship with themselves to be tolerated, in spite of the Holy Scriptures, accepted, in spite of Holy Tradition, celebrated, in spite of Church canons, expect them to be run from the Church in a heart beat.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. George on June 18, 2018, 11:58:22 AM
Yeah, because thete are no gay women.

Also, never mind that lots of straight people do the same sex acts as gays. Let them get married anyway. Never call them to account.

On this point, the ancient canons apply precisely the same canonical penalties to married couples that engage in sodomy, as persons of the same sex.  Sodomy is prohibited in both cases and treated as one sin by St. John the Faster, who does not differentiate between married couples or homosexuals with regards to the offense, but rather in both cases imposes excommunication that is roughly twice as long as excommunication for adultery; it works out to be something more than 15 years.  I don’t believe the severe penances suggested by St. John the Faster should be routinely, if ever, employed by the Church, except perhaps in the most extreme cases where there might be some aggravating element (since his canon does not, for example, differentiate between pederasty and homosexuality between consenting adults), but they do provide an invaluable insight into how the Fathers viewed these sins.

Again, we never exercise these penalties today. Never even ask. So, your argument is invalid.

tu quoque does not refute the point, btw.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 02:03:47 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

Apparently I'm now the only pro-gay Christian who ever lived?

How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Straight married couples cheat on each other all the time. Their being married doesn't automatically guarantee they won't cheat on each other. If most of the gay couples out of whatever sample size the Times asked don't care about faithfulness, it has no baring on whatever other gay couples there are out there who do. So, I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.

He allows whatever medical condition or accident or whatever led to the sterility in the straight couple. He also allows (or forces, depending on how one looks at it) homosexuals to be irrevocably attracted to the same sex and then (according to you) tell them to bare a cross of celibacy that may or may not even be within their ability to stand (can you guarantee that every homosexual is one to whom celibacy has been given? If not, you just might be denying 1 Corinthians 10:13).

I'm at least trying to find an upshot in this possibly monstrous (ironic, given your screenshot) state of affairs.

And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Not just enjoying, maybe someday using to procreate. Cloning technology, genetic engineering, there's a lot of possibilities. I'm not saying anything for certain, but I don't know that I can rule it out either.

Ok. But His commands should still evidence some of that reason.
To satisfy the curiosity of your feeble mind?

Anybody's, really. I find the anti-gay philosophizing kind of incomplete and I doubt I'm the only one.

Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Which has nothing to do with the Trinity and was spoken in a context that only obliquely relates to modern gay marriage.

Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

Just thought I'd mention it since I've seen it used to claim Isaiah didn't believe in a flat earth.

And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?

Well, I guess it's possible that there was a round earth tradition among 8th Century BC Hebrews. But without any evidence, why should I assume that there was just because it says "circle?" Every other Middle Eastern nation seems to have been flat earthers at the time.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 02:39:57 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

Apparently I'm now the only pro-gay Christian who ever lived?
Don't know how you define "pro-gay" or even "Christian" but no matter, as many who can claim (at least in name) push the flood bait agenda.
How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Straight married couples cheat on each other all the time. Their being married doesn't automatically guarantee they won't cheat on each other. If most of the gay couples out of whatever sample size the Times asked don't care about faithfulness, it has no baring on whatever other gay couples there are out there who do. So, I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

Statistically, no where near the rate of homosexual "couples." No one made the claim that the marriage vows/prayers work like a spell, but they don't drop the "forsaking all others."

You brought up your spokesmen, not I.
Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.

He allows whatever medical condition or accident or whatever led to the sterility in the straight couple. He also allows (or forces, depending on how one looks at it) homosexuals to be irrevocably attracted to the same sex and then (according to you) tell them to bare a cross of celibacy that may or may not even be within their ability to stand (can you guarantee that every homosexual is one to whom celibacy has been given? If not, you just might be denying 1 Corinthians 10:13).
I never said they had the gift of celibacy, any more than failure to find a spouse makes one automatically a good candidate for monasticism. What I did say, always, that their condition (homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals) does not give the license to define down deviancy to accept the abnormal as normal and redefine how things are and should be.

btw, you get an F in Christian theodicy.
I'm at least trying to find an upshot in this possibly monstrous (ironic, given your screenshot) state of affairs.
No, you are trying to drag us down into the pit where monsters start (no irony at all).
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Not just enjoying, maybe someday using to procreate. Cloning technology, genetic engineering, there's a lot of possibilities. I'm not saying anything for certain, but I don't know that I can rule it out either.
The Church does.
It fact, just enjoying with no reference to procreation underlines my point (and the Church's).
Ok. But His commands should still evidence some of that reason.
To satisfy the curiosity of your feeble mind?

Anybody's, really. I find the anti-gay philosophizing kind of incomplete and I doubt I'm the only one.
A shared neurosis is still insanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Which has nothing to do with the Trinity and was spoken in a context that only obliquely relates to modern gay marriage.
which has no reference to the Most Holy Trinity, which MARRIAGE has in abundance.
Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

Just thought I'd mention it since I've seen it used to claim Isaiah didn't believe in a flat earth.
No, you did assUme it and tried to discredit the wisdom of the Church on that basis.
And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?

Well, I guess it's possible that there was a round earth tradition among 8th Century BC Hebrews. But without any evidence, why should I assume that there was just because it says "circle?" Every other Middle Eastern nation seems to have been flat earthers at the time.
You should not assUme anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

Apparently I'm now the only pro-gay Christian who ever lived?
Don't know how you define "pro-gay" or even "Christian" but no matter, as many who can claim (at least in name) push the flood bait agenda.

Well then I'm not the one "making it up," now am I?

How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Straight married couples cheat on each other all the time. Their being married doesn't automatically guarantee they won't cheat on each other. If most of the gay couples out of whatever sample size the Times asked don't care about faithfulness, it has no baring on whatever other gay couples there are out there who do. So, I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

Statistically, no where near the rate of homosexual "couples." No one made the claim that the marriage vows/prayers work like a spell, but they don't drop the "forsaking all others."

You brought up your spokesmen, not I.

And just who are my "spokesmen," according you?

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of homosexual couples do cheat on each other, though I wonder how it stacks up to the number of heterosexual cheaters by religion. When a religion and the culture based on it demonizes you, it's hard to keep up all of their values.

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.

He allows whatever medical condition or accident or whatever led to the sterility in the straight couple. He also allows (or forces, depending on how one looks at it) homosexuals to be irrevocably attracted to the same sex and then (according to you) tell them to bare a cross of celibacy that may or may not even be within their ability to stand (can you guarantee that every homosexual is one to whom celibacy has been given? If not, you just might be denying 1 Corinthians 10:13).
I never said they had the gift of celibacy, any more than failure to find a spouse makes one automatically a good candidate for monasticism. What I did say, always, that their condition (homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals) does not give the license to define down deviancy to accept the abnormal as normal and redefine how things are and should be.

If they can't be celibate and they can't be gay, then what are they supposed to do? Get hypnosis? Shock treatment? Just kill themselves?

btw, you get an F in Christian theodicy.

A lot of Christian theodicy gets an F in coherence and moral sanity. Nobody asked to be born gay (or made such by natal and environmental factors, or whatever).

I'm at least trying to find an upshot in this possibly monstrous (ironic, given your screenshot) state of affairs.
No, you are trying to drag us down into the pit where monsters start (no irony at all).
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Not just enjoying, maybe someday using to procreate. Cloning technology, genetic engineering, there's a lot of possibilities. I'm not saying anything for certain, but I don't know that I can rule it out either.
The Church does.
It fact, just enjoying with no reference to procreation underlines my point (and the Church's).

Then sterile straight people aren't allowed to get married and Bill Clinton was right about "oral sex" being an oxymoron.

Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Which has nothing to do with the Trinity and was spoken in a context that only obliquely relates to modern gay marriage.
which has no reference to the Most Holy Trinity, which MARRIAGE has in abundance.

It easily could. It just needs a service written for it.

Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

Just thought I'd mention it since I've seen it used to claim Isaiah didn't believe in a flat earth.
No, you did assUme it and tried to discredit the wisdom of the Church on that basis.

Assumed what? That that's an argument that exists? I didn't have to assume it. https://www.google.com/search?ei=6QUoW_rOFsPe0wLTlZygDg&q=khug+isaiah+globo&oq=khug+isaiah+globo&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.4624.6039.0.6509.6.6.0.0.0.0.212.1084.0j5j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.921....0.KsrVE2pINS0

I'm not trying to undermine anything, just trying to show that the blameless, but limited, reasoning of a time period sometimes winds up incorporated into the culture of the Church Militant (or in this case, the OT equivalent). There's no fault in admitting that and adjusting for it.

And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?

Well, I guess it's possible that there was a round earth tradition among 8th Century BC Hebrews. But without any evidence, why should I assume that there was just because it says "circle?" Every other Middle Eastern nation seems to have been flat earthers at the time.
You should not assUme anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

That article is all about the Christian period. I'm well aware that the Apostles and Church Fathers (unless you consider Lactantius a Father, anyway. Isidore of Seville seems borderline on the shape the Earth) believed in a round earth. I'm talking about Isaiah's day.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RobS on June 18, 2018, 04:44:11 PM
Isa, sorry there's too many quote boxes to follow in this thread, but I still find your arguing inconsistent. You reject "natural law" (and I'm with you on that) and yet you still appeal to biology to buttress your argument against homosexuality. You can't have your cake and eat it. If man is created in God's image and likeness, then that means humans are "unnatural" in the biological sense. So you can't argue that homosexuality is unnatural when humans are essentially unnatural.

The other thing is, the validity of marriage in the Church does not require consummation, so why the fixation of homosexual sex?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 05:01:23 PM
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

ROFL, This is normal to you? This is what the church should accept as "normal"? What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies? That'll be a sight to see at the liturgy, but it'll be normal...rofl

I thought you said that you were done talking to me.

Anyway, do you consider this normal?

(https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1950s_ironlungs_1.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=4000)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 18, 2018, 05:07:01 PM
Quote from: Rubricnigel
What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies?

Wow, you're disgusting. Figures, from a conspiracy site buff.

As we've already gone over, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs in nature.

Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 05:19:41 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

Apparently I'm now the only pro-gay Christian who ever lived?
Don't know how you define "pro-gay" or even "Christian" but no matter, as many who can claim (at least in name) push the flood bait agenda.

Well then I'm not the one "making it up," now am I?
Yes, individually and collectively you are. Such is the way of heresy.
How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Straight married couples cheat on each other all the time. Their being married doesn't automatically guarantee they won't cheat on each other. If most of the gay couples out of whatever sample size the Times asked don't care about faithfulness, it has no baring on whatever other gay couples there are out there who do. So, I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

Statistically, no where near the rate of homosexual "couples." No one made the claim that the marriage vows/prayers work like a spell, but they don't drop the "forsaking all others."

You brought up your spokesmen, not I.

And just who are my "spokesmen," according you?
How about according to you?
"these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
The quotation marks are yours, not mine. To whom do you attribute what is in between?
At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of homosexual couples do cheat on each other, though I wonder how it stacks up to the number of heterosexual cheaters by religion. When a religion and the culture based on it demonizes you, it's hard to keep up all of their values.
non-acceptance of behavior="demonization" of persons happens only in the fevered brains of those consumed with tearing down all values to validate their lust.

"I'll show those homophobic breeders...I'm going to cheat on my gay sexual partner..."

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.

He allows whatever medical condition or accident or whatever led to the sterility in the straight couple. He also allows (or forces, depending on how one looks at it) homosexuals to be irrevocably attracted to the same sex and then (according to you) tell them to bare a cross of celibacy that may or may not even be within their ability to stand (can you guarantee that every homosexual is one to whom celibacy has been given? If not, you just might be denying 1 Corinthians 10:13).
I never said they had the gift of celibacy, any more than failure to find a spouse makes one automatically a good candidate for monasticism. What I did say, always, that their condition (homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals) does not give the license to define down deviancy to accept the abnormal as normal and redefine how things are and should be.

If they can't be celibate and they can't be gay, then what are they supposed to do? Get hypnosis? Shock treatment? Just kill themselves?
What do single heterosexuals do?
btw, you get an F in Christian theodicy.

A lot of Christian theodicy gets an F in coherence and moral sanity.

fortunately, you are in no position of authority to give grades on it.

Nobody asked to be born gay (or made such by natal and environmental factors, or whatever).
Nobody asked to be born blind, deaf or lame, and none of them celebrate it as a good thing.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/28/fd/b9/28fdb9823f40a528bbef451bcef6c5ce--equality-quotes-lgbt-quotes.jpg)
I'm at least trying to find an upshot in this possibly monstrous (ironic, given your screenshot) state of affairs.
No, you are trying to drag us down into the pit where monsters start (no irony at all).
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Not just enjoying, maybe someday using to procreate. Cloning technology, genetic engineering, there's a lot of possibilities. I'm not saying anything for certain, but I don't know that I can rule it out either.
The Church does.
It fact, just enjoying with no reference to procreation underlines my point (and the Church's).

Then sterile straight people aren't allowed to get married and Bill Clinton was right about "oral sex" being an oxymoron.
only in your convoluted illogic.

Why would lesbians enjoy strap-ons if they do not enjoy men, if, like Bill Clinton, they are only in it for pleasure and pairing sex organs is only a trifling matter?
Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Which has nothing to do with the Trinity and was spoken in a context that only obliquely relates to modern gay marriage.
which has no reference to the Most Holy Trinity, which MARRIAGE has in abundance.

It easily could. It just needs a service written for it.
They already have, all full of heresy. The Orthodox service wouldn't serve their purpose, which of course makes the point.
Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

Just thought I'd mention it since I've seen it used to claim Isaiah didn't believe in a flat earth.
No, you did assUme it and tried to discredit the wisdom of the Church on that basis.

Assumed what? That that's an argument that exists? I didn't have to assume it. https://www.google.com/search?ei=6QUoW_rOFsPe0wLTlZygDg&q=khug+isaiah+globo&oq=khug+isaiah+globo&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.4624.6039.0.6509.6.6.0.0.0.0.212.1084.0j5j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.921....0.KsrVE2pINS0
what you did assUme was that Isaiah (and the rest of the Bible, the Church, the Fathers etc.) believed in a flat earth, in a futile effort to get the camel's nose into the tent.
I'm not trying to undermine anything

disclaimer: legaleze for denying that you are saying what you are saying while you are saying it.
just trying to show that the blameless, but limited, reasoning of a time period sometimes winds up incorporated into the culture of the Church Militant (or in this case, the OT equivalent). There's no fault in admitting that and adjusting for it.
The Church isn't interested, nor dogmatizes on, the shape of the earth. The morality of human sex is a different matter, the former being perhaps beyond the scientific knowledge of the day, but the latter definitely grasped by the ethics of the day and today.
And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?

Well, I guess it's possible that there was a round earth tradition among 8th Century BC Hebrews. But without any evidence, why should I assume that there was just because it says "circle?" Every other Middle Eastern nation seems to have been flat earthers at the time.
You should not assUme anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

That article is all about the Christian period. I'm well aware that the Apostles and Church Fathers (unless you consider Lactantius a Father, anyway. Isidore of Seville seems borderline on the shape the Earth) believed in a round earth. I'm talking about Isaiah's day.
Lactantius, Isidore and Isaiah do not differ on the need of opposite sex partners for a marriage.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Rubricnigel
What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies?

Wow, you're disgusting. Figures, from a conspiracy site buff.

As we've already gone over, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs in nature.
Do strap-ons?
Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/saztH0Xl9zc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote
For LGBTQ youth to experience comparable health benefits to their non-LGBTQ peers, sex education programs must be LGBTQ-inclusive. Inclusive programs are those that help youth understand gender identity and sexual orientation with age-appropriate and medically accurate information; incorporate positive examples of LGBTQ individuals, romantic relationships and families; emphasize the need for protection during sex for people of all identities; and dispel common myths and stereotypes about behavior and identity.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/a-call-to-action-lgbtq-youth-need-inclusive-sex-education

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 18, 2018, 05:41:54 PM
So do heterosexual parades.

Again, you can't stop thinking about what gay men do with one another.

By the way, nobody in the photo you  posted is actually nude. They're all wearing shorts.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 05:49:09 PM
Isa, sorry there's too many quote boxes to follow in this thread, but I still find your arguing inconsistent. You reject "natural law" (and I'm with you on that) and yet you still appeal to biology to buttress your argument against homosexuality. You can't have your cake and eat it. If man is created in God's image and likeness, then that means humans are "unnatural" in the biological sense. So you can't argue that homosexuality is unnatural when humans are essentially unnatural.
How do you get being created in the Image and Likeness of God as being "unnatural"? In fact, human nature consists of man becoming more human, he becomes more divine.
The other thing is, the validity of marriage in the Church does not require consummation, so why the fixation of homosexual sex?
what can you consummate when there is no marriage (that goes for marriage of adulterers and bigamists, btw). The rite of marriage presupposes consummation (partly what renders it useless for "SSM").
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 06:00:23 PM
So do heterosexual parades.
can you give me the place and time of a "heterosexual parade" as I have neither heard of nor seen one.
Again, you can't stop thinking about what gay men do with one another.
Again, we think about it only when you bring it up. What lesbians do too, btw, although there may some dispute on that:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x55brnr
By the way, nobody in the photo you  posted is actually nude. They're all wearing shorts.
I do believe posting nudity here is forbidden, no?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 18, 2018, 06:17:16 PM
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

ROFL, This is normal to you? This is what the church should accept as "normal"? What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies? That'll be a sight to see at the liturgy, but it'll be normal...rofl

I thought you said that you were done talking to me.

Anyway, do you consider this normal?

(https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1950s_ironlungs_1.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=4000)

What does that picture prove? You said women are using sex toys to impregnate themselves. I'm sorry but people being kept alive, vs moral degeneracy has no correlation. Its not normal, but you seem to think it is. I was laughing because its insane what people do, and how far society has come for people to utter those words without laughing or disgust.

Quote from: Rubricnigel
What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies?

Wow, you're disgusting. Figures, from a conspiracy site buff.

As we've already gone over, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs in nature.

Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.

So animals stop procreating and settle down to live gay lives? Wouldnt that stop the "gay gene" from being passed down to the next generatiom?

You say "Conspiracy buff". Oh no, i dont buy the narrative that gays using sex toys to impregnate themselves, or lilttle kids being paraded around in DRAG is NORMAL. it says alot when you buy all that doesnt it?

I dont want to think what gay men do, but they parade around showing us and yelling it for all to hear. Kinda weird how they say, "you dont need to know what i do in my bedroom", then they walk around naked/ half naked eith dildos and sex contraptions screaming in the middle of the road. Kinda hard to miss that huh?

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 06:21:50 PM


What does that picture prove? You said women are using sex toys to impregnate themselves. I'm sorry but people being kept alive, vs moral degeneracy has no correlation. Its not normal, but you seem to think it is. I was laughing because its insane what people do, and how far society has come for people to utter those words without laughing or disgust

No, I'm saying I don't trust you to delineate for me what normal is when your antivax nonsense would seem to mean more kids get crippling illnesses like polio.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 18, 2018, 06:34:37 PM
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

ROFL, This is normal to you? This is what the church should accept as "normal"? What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies? That'll be a sight to see at the liturgy, but it'll be normal...rofl

I thought you said that you were done talking to me.

Anyway, do you consider this normal?

(https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1950s_ironlungs_1.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=4000)

What does that picture prove? You said women are using sex toys to impregnate themselves. I'm sorry but people being kept alive, vs moral degeneracy has no correlation. Its not normal, but you seem to think it is. I was laughing because its insane what people do, and how far society has come for people to utter those words without laughing or disgust.

Quote from: Rubricnigel
What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies?

Wow, you're disgusting. Figures, from a conspiracy site buff.

As we've already gone over, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs in nature.

Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.

So animals stop procreating and settle down to live gay lives? Wouldnt that stop the "gay gene" from being passed down to the next generatiom?

You say "Conspiracy buff". Oh no, i dont buy the narrative that gays using sex toys to impregnate themselves, or lilttle kids being paraded around in DRAG is NORMAL. it says alot when you buy all that doesnt it?

I dont want to think what gay men do, but they parade around showing us and yelling it for all to hear. Kinda weird how they say, "you dont need to know what i do in my bedroom", then they walk around naked/ half naked eith dildos and sex contraptions screaming in the middle of the road. Kinda hard to miss that huh?
Where again are all these gay men taunting you so mercilessly ? On Grindr?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 07:18:08 PM
Guess we're back to the same old thought-terminating-cliche appeal to "the Fathers" as though one's opinion of them is obviously the same thing as God's eternal truth...
I never left the Fathers. That you were not with them explains your wandering around in circles. God's eternal truth does not come from you making it up.

Apparently I'm now the only pro-gay Christian who ever lived?
Don't know how you define "pro-gay" or even "Christian" but no matter, as many who can claim (at least in name) push the flood bait agenda.

Well then I'm not the one "making it up," now am I?
Yes, individually and collectively you are. Such is the way of heresy.

How can it be heresy if it's never been defined as such by a council?

How many straight couples these days actually care about fidelity?

They married one, officially 100%, as it is part of the deal.
And since when are we using opinion polls as indicative of anything useful?
You're the one confusing prevalent ignorance for common knowledge, not I. You place priority of such "couples" over the Fathers, not I. I just reported what they said.

Straight married couples cheat on each other all the time. Their being married doesn't automatically guarantee they won't cheat on each other. If most of the gay couples out of whatever sample size the Times asked don't care about faithfulness, it has no baring on whatever other gay couples there are out there who do. So, I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

Statistically, no where near the rate of homosexual "couples." No one made the claim that the marriage vows/prayers work like a spell, but they don't drop the "forsaking all others."

You brought up your spokesmen, not I.

And just who are my "spokesmen," according you?
How about according to you?
"these people are committed to spending their lives together like any other couple and are not just having casual or abusive sex like ancient pagans?"
The quotation marks are yours, not mine. To whom do you attribute what is in between?

It wasn't a quote from anybody, it was a rhetorical device. I was summing up my own position.

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of homosexual couples do cheat on each other, though I wonder how it stacks up to the number of heterosexual cheaters by religion. When a religion and the culture based on it demonizes you, it's hard to keep up all of their values.
non-acceptance of behavior="demonization" of persons happens only in the fevered brains of those consumed with tearing down all values to validate their lust.

When you call them sodomites, dissolute, flood-baiters, etc. I think it's a bit farther than just "non-acceptance." If you think they should be demonized, own up to it, be proud of your views, don't try to pussy foot around.

"I'll show those homophobic breeders...I'm going to cheat on my gay sexual partner..."

You miss my point. Not as many homosexuals are religious since religions don't tend to like them. It's understandable to an extent that they would be less likely to cheat on their spouse if they were.

Also, why do you call it cheating if you won't call what they have a real relationship?

Then we're back the fact that sterile straight people are allowed to be married.

I never left them. You're the one wandering around....
Seems to me that if God allows them to become sterile in the first place (and yet still get married), then He might also allow sterile homosexual couples to marry as well.
Doesn't seem that way to God, the Church or the Fathers. The redundancy of "sterile homosexual couple" qualifies as pleonism. God does not "allow them" to be sterile in the first place: they make themselves that way by denying basic biology.

He allows whatever medical condition or accident or whatever led to the sterility in the straight couple. He also allows (or forces, depending on how one looks at it) homosexuals to be irrevocably attracted to the same sex and then (according to you) tell them to bare a cross of celibacy that may or may not even be within their ability to stand (can you guarantee that every homosexual is one to whom celibacy has been given? If not, you just might be denying 1 Corinthians 10:13).
I never said they had the gift of celibacy, any more than failure to find a spouse makes one automatically a good candidate for monasticism. What I did say, always, that their condition (homosexuals and non-married heterosexuals) does not give the license to define down deviancy to accept the abnormal as normal and redefine how things are and should be.

If they can't be celibate and they can't be gay, then what are they supposed to do? Get hypnosis? Shock treatment? Just kill themselves?
What do single heterosexuals do?

Either get married or be celibate (depending on whether they can handle it).

btw, you get an F in Christian theodicy.

A lot of Christian theodicy gets an F in coherence and moral sanity.

fortunately, you are in no position of authority to give grades on it.

Are you?


Nobody asked to be born gay (or made such by natal and environmental factors, or whatever).
Nobody asked to be born blind, deaf or lame, and none of them celebrate it as a good thing.

Actually... (https://www.google.com/search?q=deaf+pride&oq=deaf+pride&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4138j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

And at least you aren't telling lame people they're going to Hell for using a wheel chair.

I'm at least trying to find an upshot in this possibly monstrous (ironic, given your screenshot) state of affairs.
No, you are trying to drag us down into the pit where monsters start (no irony at all).
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.
(https://audreyjmoeller.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/frankenstein-graverobbers.jpg)

You bring up the idea of lesbians enjoying strap-ons makes my point.

Not just enjoying, maybe someday using to procreate. Cloning technology, genetic engineering, there's a lot of possibilities. I'm not saying anything for certain, but I don't know that I can rule it out either.
The Church does.
It fact, just enjoying with no reference to procreation underlines my point (and the Church's).

Then sterile straight people aren't allowed to get married and Bill Clinton was right about "oral sex" being an oxymoron.
only in your convoluted illogic.

Seems like the end point to your making procreative sex the be all and end all.

Why would lesbians enjoy strap-ons if they do not enjoy men, if, like Bill Clinton, they are only in it for pleasure and pairing sex organs is only a trifling matter?

Who says they're only in it for pleasure? Plenty of them adopt or use sperm banks, for instance, which indicates they don't JUST want pleasure. It's not incongruous to enjoy a certain sensation but not the gender that comes with it.

Yeah, and there's no Mother in the Trinity and the Son is Begotten without sex. What's your point?
God's: "He created them from the beginning male and female."

Which has nothing to do with the Trinity and was spoken in a context that only obliquely relates to modern gay marriage.
which has no reference to the Most Holy Trinity, which MARRIAGE has in abundance.

It easily could. It just needs a service written for it.
They already have, all full of heresy. The Orthodox service wouldn't serve their purpose, which of course makes the point.

In what ways wouldn't it?

And even in the Orthodox Church, new services get written from time to time.

Circle, not sphere (yes, I know the Italian is "globo" but that seems to me more like a biased modern translation). It only proves that Isaiah did not believe in a square or rectangular Earth.
I don't know what Italian has to do with it.

Just thought I'd mention it since I've seen it used to claim Isaiah didn't believe in a flat earth.
No, you did assUme it and tried to discredit the wisdom of the Church on that basis.

Assumed what? That that's an argument that exists? I didn't have to assume it. https://www.google.com/search?ei=6QUoW_rOFsPe0wLTlZygDg&q=khug+isaiah+globo&oq=khug+isaiah+globo&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.4624.6039.0.6509.6.6.0.0.0.0.212.1084.0j5j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.921....0.KsrVE2pINS0
what you did assUme was that Isaiah (and the rest of the Bible, the Church, the Fathers etc.) believed in a flat earth, in a futile effort to get the camel's nose into the tent.

If I implied that about THE CHURCH, it was unintentional. In the OT they believed in a flat earth; the Fathers were all round Earth Geocentrists as far as I can tell (even though Heliocentrism existed in that day, it was minority view).

I'm not trying to undermine anything

disclaimer: legaleze for denying that you are saying what you are saying while you are saying it.

Clarifying a definition based on new information is not undermining.

just trying to show that the blameless, but limited, reasoning of a time period sometimes winds up incorporated into the culture of the Church Militant (or in this case, the OT equivalent). There's no fault in admitting that and adjusting for it.
The Church isn't interested, nor dogmatizes on, the shape of the earth. The morality of human sex is a different matter, the former being perhaps beyond the scientific knowledge of the day, but the latter definitely grasped by the ethics of the day and today.

It's based around the assumptions about human psychology/behavior of that day. Those assumptions have since been well challenged.

And the evidence of Isaiah's belief in a flat earth-where is it?

Well, I guess it's possible that there was a round earth tradition among 8th Century BC Hebrews. But without any evidence, why should I assume that there was just because it says "circle?" Every other Middle Eastern nation seems to have been flat earthers at the time.
You should not assUme anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

That article is all about the Christian period. I'm well aware that the Apostles and Church Fathers (unless you consider Lactantius a Father, anyway. Isidore of Seville seems borderline on the shape the Earth) believed in a round earth. I'm talking about Isaiah's day.
Lactantius, Isidore and Isaiah do not differ on the need of opposite sex partners for a marriage.

Because they lived before people had much of a concept that two people of the same sex could actually have a loving, mutual relationship. Their concept of homosexuality was pretty much just temple prostitution and the rape of slave boys.

Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 07:23:14 PM
Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/saztH0Xl9zc/maxresdefault.jpg)

Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)

And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 18, 2018, 08:15:15 PM
Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/saztH0Xl9zc/maxresdefault.jpg)

Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)

And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
You have a talent of dulling the edges of sharp knifes. If I were of weeker mind you could surely convince.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Sethrak on June 18, 2018, 08:29:41 PM
How about calming down and getting ready for throwing tennis ball from across the room ```

Let's have all Homosexual diseased of body or not ~ together with the liars and arsewoles on one side of the auditorium ~ ~~~~ Orthodox Christians ~ and well ~  other Christians on the other side ~ now ~ No Liars - monkey man ~ everybody on their honor ( not sure how that's gona work )

Wait a minute ~ how can we know if a liar wants to stand with the Christians and voice for the filth and liars ```


Let's think this one out ~ ( Liars and Degenerates should not read this ) The Degenerated and liars are here ~ Only to infiltrate an Orthodox Christian Forum ~  why would they do that ~ to apply pressure and influence and to disrupt what might go on normally ~ just as in collage, government ~ here it more ~ just to be up in your face on your home ground ```

Monkey man has already said : He'll go ether way ~ with woman or man ~ but he says he's not a flat out homo punk cause he can go ether way ~~ so he gets to talk ~ homo cutesy verbal pictures of their filthy actions ~ here in the open ~ out front where Orthodox Ladies might come by to read ~ why not this is and Orthodox site ```

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I repaired a front step ~ here at the mountain ranch ~ you know what a ~ Dug Fir 2"X8"X10' runs up here ~ $13 ~ and the quality of construction grade is crap ~ they should be ashamed ```

Well ~ think I'll have a large brandy ( in this case Oghi ) as Dumbeledore would say ```
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 18, 2018, 08:39:17 PM
That post made no sense whatsoever.

You remind me of Stashko. Once I said he could only be appreciated if you understood him to be like abstract art.

I think you're the same.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 18, 2018, 09:02:56 PM
That post made no sense whatsoever.

You remind me of Stashko. Once I said he could only be appreciated if you understood him to be like abstract art.

I think you're the same.
It’s like stashko and pasadi made love, had a baby and had him baptized him non-Chalcedonian and he turned out a bit more of an ecumenist but also less funny.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 18, 2018, 09:13:49 PM
That post made no sense whatsoever.

You remind me of Stashko. Once I said he could only be appreciated if you understood him to be like abstract art.

I think you're the same.
It’s like stashko and pasadi made love, had a baby and had him baptized him non-Chalcedonian and he turned out a bit more of an ecumenist but also less funny.

:)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 09:16:53 PM
And what exactly do you think I'm lying about, Sethrak?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 18, 2018, 10:36:21 PM
And this is assuming that advances in technology never allow homosexuals to conceive somehow. For example, there's a lesbian engineer who made an ejaculating strap-on. It uses donated semen from a man, but it's a start.

ROFL, This is normal to you? This is what the church should accept as "normal"? What about when 2 men take a pig uterus and strap it with hoses to one of their bellies? That'll be a sight to see at the liturgy, but it'll be normal...rofl

I thought you said that you were done talking to me.

Anyway, do you consider this normal?

(https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1950s_ironlungs_1.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=4000)

If you knew the context of that and of Polio patients in the 1950s, when that type of iron lung was most heavily used, you would know that a large number of patients eventually recovered to the point where they were able to leave the iron lung, and still others were able to use positive pressure face masks.  There is a vast difference between using medical technology to keep people alive, vs. using genetic engineering to create embryos which would not otherwise be possible to create (and we should note, its quite possible babies born as a result of such genetic engineering may develop unexpected genetic diseases).

In line with Orthodox doctrine, I am opposed to abortion in all cases; with this kind of fertilization, it is also likely many embryos will be deemed non-viable and “discarded” which is to say, aborted.  However, I am opposed to the abortion of any babies born using this unnatural and unethical technique, although I believe the surrogate mother (in the case of male-male conception) or foster heterosexual parents, or pretty much anyone other than the two men or two women who “ordered” such an infant, should receive custody.  I’m firmly opposed to homosexuals raising children and consider it one of the great moral evils of our time.   There is a priest in Southern California, Fr. Trentham I believe is his name, who has written compelling arguments concerning the breakdown of the family.

Now, speaking of Orthodox doctrine, I should like to return to the subject of the iron lung.  Whereas abortion is universally condemned by the Orthodox hierarchy, I am not aware of a single bishop whoever condemned mechanical ventillation.   And let us stress that last bit just a tad: the iron lungs of the 1950s were among the first successful mechanical ventillators, but they would not be the last; a virtuous cycle of innovation in positive pressure ventillators and anaesthesia machines followed from the technical innovations that originated with the iron lung.   The iron lungs were used not just to treat Polio patients, but other respiratory cases as well, which nowadays would either be handled with a non-invasive face mask, minimally invasive respiration via a tracheotomy, or intubation on a ventilllator, which saved my beloved grandfather’s life and the life of one of my best friends, adding two years to to the life of my grandfather, and more than a decade to the life of my friend, which included what I believe were several of the happiest years of his life (he required mechanical ventillation following a horrific injury in which he was runover by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver).

 Both cases were cases of great mercy and blessing, in the spirit of medicine which the Church has always embraced; healing, in the manner of St. Luke and St. Panteleimon. 

In like manner, through the prayers of the Church, I believe we have the potential to bring about healing in the case of the truly repentent homosexual.  In fact, I am certain of it, as we have documented cases of saints who emerged from lives of self-abasement and indulgence of the passions.  A recent example of a person healed by the Church who will likely be glorified in the future is Fr. Seraphim Rose, whose book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, I highly reccommend, both seriously and following the tradition of one of the funniest memes in the history of OCNet.

All joking aside, Fr. Seraphim Rose was able to escape the passions and built a beautiful monastery, which is to this day flourishing; I have friends who visited it who loved the experience, it looks a bit too rugged for me, although I might be up to it (I did grow up in the North Valley of California, after all) but they definitely had a holy experience with the monks who are the spiritual children and grandchildren of whom many of us venerate as St. Seraphim of Platina.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2018, 11:01:17 PM
Not what the comparison was. Explained above.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2018, 11:51:50 PM
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)
you missed where they did not go around naked or eat manure cakes advocating for temple prostitution and starving the poor, but speaking out against vice.
And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
I'm sure he does
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIE40HrXoAE0oyT.jpg)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2018, 12:00:48 AM
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.

You are wrong over homosexuality. Get over it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 19, 2018, 12:12:27 AM
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)
you missed where they did not go around naked or eat manure cakes advocating for temple prostitution and starving the poor, but speaking out against vice.

No, I see that. I just don't agree that we're talking about vice in this case.

Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.

Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality. And the truth is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety and we only have condemnations of the former.

Get over it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 19, 2018, 07:51:11 AM
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 19, 2018, 08:03:17 AM
Not what the comparison was. Explained above.

Oh yes, you bring up past exchanges to prove your point on gay marriage.
Nothing like re hashing old arguments...

You never claimed it was for that, you posted a pic of an iron lung. Its not our fault we dont understand your odd train of logic.
Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/saztH0Xl9zc/maxresdefault.jpg)

Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)

And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
You have a talent of dulling the edges of sharp knifes. If I were of weeker mind you could surely convince.

She has a talent of brushing off everything, and refusing to give any ground, even when there is a picture.
   Reminds me of atheists, brushing off everything then trying to hold you to their ideals and triggers.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2018, 09:12:25 AM
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)
you missed where they did not go around naked or eat manure cakes advocating for temple prostitution and starving the poor, but speaking out against vice.

No, I see that. I just don't agree that we're talking about vice in this case.
The Truth does not depend on your agreement.
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.

Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality.

Which is why she never got into dogmatizing on the nitty gritty of the physical sciences. God chose not to reveal such things, but let man explore instead, and the Church took her cue from His silence (that the Scholastics tried to fill it in is one of their original errors).

And the truth lie is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety

fixed that for you.

No, we find the same crap as was then, and as is seen now. Nothing new under the Sun, as Scripture attests.
and we only have condemnations of the former.
Scripture has no expiration date.
Get over it.
you want to guzzle down and swallow what John Money put in the Kool Aid, that's your choice (and NAMBLA will welcome you). Don't try cramming it down our throats.
(https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/no-kool-aid.gif)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RobS on June 19, 2018, 10:45:59 AM
How do you get being created in the Image and Likeness of God as being "unnatural"? In fact, human nature consists of man becoming more human, he becomes more divine.
"Unnatural" as it relates to biology or whatever scientific conception of man. That's why it is so crucial our understanding of what it means to be human starts with the Incarnation. We both agree here.

So I don't mind arguments opposed to homosexuality on a scriptural, traditional, theological, etc. basis. I just don't find arguments from biology persuasive.

Quote
what can you consummate when there is no marriage (that goes for marriage of adulterers and bigamists, btw). The rite of marriage presupposes consummation (partly what renders it useless for "SSM").
I agree, but I'm just saying a marriage is still valid even without consummation. We even have some saints, controversially I might add (*cough*St. John of Kronstadt*cough*), that never consummated their marriages but still viewed as valid in the eyes of the Church.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 19, 2018, 11:47:17 PM
People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.

Could you clarify your argument here? Are you claiming that there is something other than the Church and/or the law that binds people who practice heterosexuality to stay faithful to one partner?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 20, 2018, 12:23:45 AM
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.

FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 20, 2018, 12:53:31 AM
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.
Zero states in the U.S. require sex tests for anyone to get married, even before marriage deform.

You're just a font of irrelevance aren't you, and it contines...
FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.
Why? Has basic biology changed in the past century? The existence of heterosexual infidelity? The rate of homosexual infidelity?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 20, 2018, 01:15:55 AM
Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)
you missed where they did not go around naked or eat manure cakes advocating for temple prostitution and starving the poor, but speaking out against vice.

No, I see that. I just don't agree that we're talking about vice in this case.
The Truth does not depend on your agreement.
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.

Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality.

Which is why she never got into dogmatizing on the nitty gritty of the physical sciences. God chose not to reveal such things, but let man explore instead, and the Church took her cue from His silence (that the Scholastics tried to fill it in is one of their original errors).

And the truth lie is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety

fixed that for you.

No, we find the same crap as was then, and as is seen now. Nothing new under the Sun, as Scripture attests.
and we only have condemnations of the former.
Scripture has no expiration date.
Get over it.
you want to guzzle down and swallow what John Money put in the Kool Aid, that's your choice (and NAMBLA will welcome you). Don't try cramming it down our throats.
(https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/no-kool-aid.gif)

I agree with your post to an almost unfathomable degree.  My agreement with it borders upon being uncircumscribable. 

Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 20, 2018, 01:18:43 AM
ialmisry is going full Antonious...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:05 AM
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.
Zero states in the U.S. require sex tests for anyone to get married, even before marriage deform.

You're just a font of irrelevance aren't you, and it contines...
FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.
Why? Has basic biology changed in the past century? The existence of heterosexual infidelity? The rate of homosexual infidelity?

Another brilliant post by the defender of the great Sabaite apologist.  Here an interesting point is raised: hypothetically, before the supreme court overstepped its jurisdiction in a manner unseen since Roe v. Wade, homosexual couples could easily have been wedded by disinterested bureaucrats,  inadvertantly, or advertantly in some places, by dishonest clergy or even through the use of transvestitism.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:30 AM
ialmisry is going full Antonious...

I miss AN.  Pray for him.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 20, 2018, 01:24:31 AM
I miss AN.  Pray for him
Me too, his sense of humour was peculiarly interesting.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Arachne on June 20, 2018, 05:10:05 AM
Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).

Yep, you'll have to go elsewhere to read about the lesbian couple that tricked the RCC into marrying them in 1901 - a marriage that was never annulled either in the church or civil registry. ;D
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 20, 2018, 05:38:17 AM
People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.

Could you clarify your argument here? Are you claiming that there is something other than the Church and/or the law that binds people who practice heterosexuality to stay faithful to one partner?

Currently, law does not really bind anyone to remain faithful to their spouse. In theory, you could punish your cheating spouse through divorce due to adultery, but aside from the fact that you'd be divorced, it also proves ridiculously difficult to actually prove the infidelity.

Only the Church binds a married man and woman to monogamy, and no one else.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 20, 2018, 05:45:18 AM
Monogamy does not equal fertility.

Zero states in the U.S. require fertility tests for anyone to get married.

FinnJames is correct, many heterosexual married people are unfaithful to one another.

Although you'll never listen, Laka, many homosexual couples are faithful to one another. You are a fountain of stereotypes.

It's like you haven't been outside your house in 100 years.

Fertile couples who have sex can produce offspring.
See, I can state obvious facts too! Yeah me!

Secular marriage and Marriage in the Church are not the same.
Boom, another obvious fact stated!

Many married people are faithful to one another and never commit adultery.
Wow, I'm on a roll now!

Many homosexuals have open arrangements, even after getting gay married. I know people like that. I'm also not a fountain of stereotypes.
Man I'm just spot on with these statement now!

I leave my house several times a day. I even work with gay people.
Daaaaaaaang, nailed it by stating some facts.

All sarc aside, you know nothing about me so probably ask first before you accuse me. You might find that you've got the wrong idea.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 20, 2018, 05:59:17 AM
Equating always sterile sexual acts with the monogamous, procreative union of married spouses is not only against Church teaching (which rightly condemns homosexuality as sinful), but also defies all logic. Homosexual sex is not procreative and can never be.

The idea that two men or two women being "commitment in a life long sexual relationship" would somehow "transform" the sex acts between them is demonic deception. It's a satanic lie from the pit of hell, to confuse the faithful and to further enslave people who are homosexual to thier disordered passions. Damn that lie to hell, I'm not drinking to societal kook-aid that normalizes and legitimizes sin.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 20, 2018, 06:05:01 AM
People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.

Could you clarify your argument here? Are you claiming that there is something other than the Church and/or the law that binds people who practice heterosexuality to stay faithful to one partner?

Currently, law does not really bind anyone to remain faithful to their spouse. In theory, you could punish your cheating spouse through divorce due to adultery, but aside from the fact that you'd be divorced, it also proves ridiculously difficult to actually prove the infidelity.

Only the Church binds a married man and woman to monogamy, and no one else.

If this is the case--which I agree with you it is--then what right do we have to expect anyone the Church denies marriage to (and according to canon law this includes some male-female couples as well as all same-sex couples) to practice monogamy?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 20, 2018, 06:23:47 AM
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 20, 2018, 07:40:28 AM
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.

Thank you for a very clear and precise answer.  :)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 20, 2018, 08:45:20 AM
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.

This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.   The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 20, 2018, 09:04:26 AM
I think you've misread what I wrote. I don't see where it's in direct contradiction with symphonia.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 20, 2018, 09:07:41 AM
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.

This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.   The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
Good Luck restoring the magical Solomonic rule or the supernatural Lamaist rule in Tibet , but how is symphonia supposed to work in the US? This country  was founded as a direct negation of it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 20, 2018, 12:09:01 PM
Woe be unto the man who reads the Catholic Encyclopedia, for he shall be bored to the point of apoplexy by the myriad unfounded laudations written to bestow unwarranted honor and unjustified dignity upon the Schoolmen, laudations which proceed relentlessly and unceasingly, without purpose or end, almost as though I were guilty of writing them (let the seasoned OCnetter understand).

Yep, you'll have to go elsewhere to read about the lesbian couple that tricked the RCC into marrying them in 1901 - a marriage that was never annulled either in the church or civil registry. ;D
We had a case in IL from I think the 90's. I don't recall how it came to the appellate court (it was something where the marriage was an incidental "fact" which the appellate court dismissed as error). Not sure if the courts would be retroactive on that.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: ialmisry on June 20, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
I'm not sure what you point is, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Orthodox Christians are the only ones actually bound by the Church. They do so by being members. In order to be in the Church, you have to actually be in the Church and believe and attempt to live those teachings.

When it comes to society that is not Orthodox, we are bound to uphold, witness, and stand for what is good According to the Church, even if/when this puts us at direct odds with laws, government, legal precedent. If we can influence anything, we should. The manner of that influence on society though, is at times more or less important. Regardless, running countries is not the point of the Church. This world is not our home.

This is of course directly contradicted by the vast Patristic corpus to emerge following the conversion of St. Constantine the Great and later St. Theodosius, on I believe it was called either the divine synergy or symposia, that could exist between a state ruled by a pious Christian, and the Church.   The long period of the Byzantine Empire, the Armenian Kingdoms, and later Orthodox states such as the Kievan Rus, Muscovy and the Tsarist Empire, and of course the holy and miraculous Solomonic rule of the great Ethiopian Empire which came to an end only in the 1970s with the brutal and despised Derg regime, the crown jewell of communist malevolence, we find a general sense that although the states I have enumerated were at times capable of great evil and of tolerating moral decadence and impiety, on the whole, to the greater degree, the Orthodox influence in these states made the Church the consciece of the State, the voice to whisper in the ear of the Emperor “Memento mori.”  This influence was very positive and explains the relatively high moral stamdards in several of these states, when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, these regimes look monstrous by the standards of contemporary liberal democracy, but I would argue this is largely irrelevant because (a) those standards are fundamentally wrong and the products of a corrupt, decayed and degenerate civilization, and which that civilization has never managed to uphold (bearing in mind Fr. George’s timely reminder of the fallacy of invoking tu quoque), and (b) one should expect that in less technologically sophisticated states, the rule of law and social order in general will be maintained with more brutality than in more technologically advanced states, owing to fears concerning food availability, disease, et cetera (the technological decay of Western Europe went hand in hand with increased brutality of all remaining governments after the Roman Empire collapsed and the knowledge of how to do things like maintain aqueducts and manufacture concrete was completely lost).
Good Luck restoring the magical Solomonic rule or the supernatural Lamaist rule in Tibet , but how is symphonia supposed to work in the US? This country  was founded as a direct negation of it.
again the ignorance of Marixism. For an accurate history of the matter from the US Supreme Court (and still valid as precedent, cited in past decade by the Supremes):https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html

It is interesting how the recent issue at the border has made Pelosi and Clinton into Bible thumpers.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.

And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2018, 11:05:50 PM
Just like the Church has accepted that the Saints (Old and New Testament) of the past could be wrong about the shape of the Earth or the makeup of the solar system (or any number of other things), so it should be able to accept that they were wrong about homosexuality. It's not a fault to just be wrong about something because of the time you live in.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your tirades, but the idiocy of this caught my eye and cried out for a response.

The Church does not care about the heliocentric versus geocentric universe, a flat earth versus a round or oblong one, or any number of other things that depend on advances sciences etc. for verification. She cares a lot about the nature of marriage and preserving it as its Creator in the flesh described it, and knowledge to verify that lay within immediate reach eternally of every society of men.

Yes, but the Church does care telling the truth about reality.

Which is why she never got into dogmatizing on the nitty gritty of the physical sciences. God chose not to reveal such things, but let man explore instead, and the Church took her cue from His silence (that the Scholastics tried to fill it in is one of their original errors).

Right, and I would argue that God has been essentially silent on modern homosexuality, too (and possibly implies His endorsement by the fact that it works pretty well and that there's no obvious "gay cure"). People can assume He doesn't like it, sure. But I don't think we have clear evidence that He doesn't.

And the truth lie is that modern homosexuality is very different from its ancient/pre-modern variety

fixed that for you.

No, we find the same crap as was then, and as is seen now. Nothing new under the Sun, as Scripture attests.

We have extra-marital sex of both heterosexual and homosexual varieties just as they did then. But where are the examples of loving and mutual same-sex unions in the ancient world? They seem to have not really been on anyone's conceptual radar. I guess you could argue that Hadrian and Antinous or Alexander and Hephestion come close, but it was still fundamentally predatory in that one of them was king over the other.

and we only have condemnations of the former.
Scripture has no expiration date.
Get over it.
you want to guzzle down and swallow what John Money put in the Kool Aid, that's your choice (and NAMBLA will welcome you). Don't try cramming it down our throats.
(https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/no-kool-aid.gif)

Oh goody. More fallacious comparisons to child molestation.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2018, 11:10:57 PM
Not what the comparison was. Explained above.

Oh yes, you bring up past exchanges to prove your point on gay marriage.
Nothing like re hashing old arguments...

You never claimed it was for that, you posted a pic of an iron lung. Its not our fault we dont understand your odd train of logic.

You're right, I should have been more clear. My bad.

Quentin Crisp was right about guys like you. You really just can't stop thinking about what gay men do with each other.
only when the gays and their enablers keep yelling what they do with each other, over and over and over.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/saztH0Xl9zc/maxresdefault.jpg)

Something tells me that that's been blown out of proportion in the reporting. But even so, transgressive behavior has its uses to challenge injustice (see, Isaiah walking around naked, Ezekiel eating bread cooked using dung fires, etc.)

And even if some paraders got a little overexuberant, it's not like celebrations even by Christians don't ever spiral out of control (I'm sure Augustin's got some stories from Romania).
You have a talent of dulling the edges of sharp knifes. If I were of weeker mind you could surely convince.

She has a talent of brushing off everything, and refusing to give any ground, even when there is a picture.
   Reminds me of atheists, brushing off everything then trying to hold you to their ideals and triggers.

Not sure if you don't know that I'm a guy, or if you're trying to insult me. Whatever...

Ok, so the existence of that picture in and of itself proves all the most lurid stories about what went on at Chicago Pride? What's your point?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 05:51:56 AM
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.

And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?

Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 21, 2018, 07:12:16 AM
Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!

This is quite helpful because it states your case very clearly. Thank you. However, I would like to ask a question:

Jesus is not a supporter of remarriage following divorce (Matt. 19:9, if I'm reading the passage correctly), yet if I understand Church history correctly the early Fathers allow divorce and remarriage and today 3 marriages are allowed by the Church. So I'd like to ask about something in your final paragraph above. You state that 'Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change' and that 'never do we conform it to the spirit of the age'. Yet there seems to have been both a change in (Jesus') teaching and a conformation to the spirit of the age (the early Church Fathers lived in) with regard to divorce and remarriage. This leads me to ask when Divine Revelation ceased--with the teachings of the OT, with Jesus' and Paul's NT teachings, with the Tradition established by the early Church Fathers, or is Divine Revelation still ongoing today?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 07:30:59 AM
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.

And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?

Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

I don't see your point here, sorry.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

But why is it not on the same level? My question is why can't God unite them as one flesh?

It's not because they can't procreate since 1. Sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry and 2. There's nothing in theory stopping God from miraculously causing a homosexual couple to conceive a child (or working through human technology to make it possible).

The only logic I can see maybe working is the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line. But, ignoring people born intersex, the problem is that gender is a lot more complex than we think, with people exhibiting traits of the opposite sex to one degree or another all the time. There don't seem to be any real examples of 100% manly men and girly girls in some kind of Platonic ideal (or even universally agreed upon definitions of what that would mean in theory). Does having one set of pipes or another really have that much of a normative effect, if one's personality can be so variant?

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

They most likely existed, but the culture at large doesn't seem to have thought in terms of committed relationships between them. The majority only seem to have thought in terms of heterosexual=breeding life pair, homosexual=casual encounters or some kind of master-slave thing. General understandings have changed.

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!

God's truth is unchanging, but I think a case can be made for our apprehension of it being limited by the times that we live in. Perhaps a comparison to Peter realizing that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles is apt.

Quote from: Acts 11:6-17, emphasis mine
When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

True, none of this is absolute proof. But I take the combination of 1. The basic harmlessness of committed homosexual relationships and 2. The very real suffering caused by anti-gay doctrine- as a pretty strong circumstantial case for acceptance, at least.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 07:38:01 AM
I can see where you might see an inconsistency. It's not true that the early fathers allowed divorce, quite the opposite. It was condemned and remarriage was taught adultery by many. This follows the biblical exhortation. Also, this explains why the order of widows was prevalent then.

But did something then change? No. It's true that over time second and third 'marriage' was allowed if the sake of the salvation of the souls involved. However, the church only counts one marriage as being Sacramental, a second marriage is penitential and the service thereof indicates this. In fact, it is quite a different service. There is no service for third marriage, that arrangement is merely recognized.

Also keep in mind all the canons that dealt very rigorously with divorce, adultery etc.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 07:43:39 AM
That's not correct. The Church officially teaches as part of the deposit of faith that Homosexual acts are a sin. They are unnatural. Supporting homosexuality is a sin of scandal. Homosexuality defines itself only by singular deviant sexual acts. Homosexuality is not committed or monogamous. That's non-sense. People who practice homosexuality are not bound to stay faithful to one partner nor are they bound by any kind of moral concept that keeps them limited to one person. Homosexuals can and do choose a variety of arrangements.
It's completely erroneous to say that because some people may be commuted to staying together and only have each other for companionship and sexual partners that this is somehow new and different reality.
Homosexual acts are condemned by the Church as sin. Whether a person says they do this out of "love" or lust does not change the truth that these acts are sinful and that that lifestyle is not compatible with being a Christian.

Finally, homosexuals can't by definition be monogamous. Homosexual acts are sterile. Monogamy, literally as a word, is tied to procreation and marriage. It does simply mean having one sex partner at a time. Also, despite the insanity of American law which grants "marriage" to two homosexuals, marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman in the Church. Homosexuals are not married.

And the word "villain" used to mean "peasant." Etymology is helpful, but the meanings of words also evolve over time.

Yes, homosexual acts have been condemned by the Church in the past, but why? The idea that it is only because they are non-procreative seems to me to have quite a few problems, not least of which is the fact that sterile heterosexuals (including people that will never conceive bar a scientific advancement or a miracle from God, just like any two homosexuals) get married all the time.

I don't see how the fact that lots of homosexual couples have open marriages proves anything when plenty of straight couples do as well.

I'll admit that the gender essentialist argument is a little stronger. But given that even the Bible employs a certain amount of gender bending language to describe God (and male believers), and both men and women successfully flout gender stereotypes all the time- it's pretty hard for me to see it as definitive. Why should I believe in a Platonic ideal that doesn't actually seem to universally apply?

You're right that two people being in love and committed to one another is not sufficient in and of itself, but in the absence of clear reasons not to allow homosexuality just because it's homosexuality, I think it's a powerful piece of evidence.

And under the list of "lies from Hell," might we also include abusive "reparitive therapy" that winds up driving a lot of homosexual people to commit suicide?

Homosexuals are homosexual because they have sex with people of the same gender. There aren't any extra super secrets known only to gay people that define someone as gay. Seeking platonic relationships with people of the same gender doesn't make you gay, desiring to have sex with them is the only thing that defines your homosexuality.

I don't see your point here, sorry.

The Church condemns homosexual acts.
Committing homosexual acts with only one person and claiming to be committed to them, even through obtaining a civil contract that you are legally "married" doesn't magically transform your gay sex acts into something that's on the level of monogamous, married couples in a Sacramental Union whereby God recognizes that the man and woman, the two are made one flesh.

But why is it not on the same level? My question is why can't God unite them as one flesh?

It's not because they can't procreate since 1. Sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry and 2. There's nothing in theory stopping God from miraculously causing a homosexual couple to conceive a child (or working through human technology to make it possible).

The only logic I can see maybe working is the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line. But, ignoring people born intersex, the problem is that gender is a lot more complex than we think, with people exhibiting traits of the opposite sex to one degree or another all the time. There don't seem to be any real examples of 100% manly men and girly girls in some kind of Platonic ideal (or even universally agreed upon definitions of what that would mean in theory). Does having one set of pipes or another really have that much of a normative effect, if one's personality can be so variant?

Also, it's bizarre and insulting to assume that homosexuality in modern times, because some gays are interested in getting married, is now magically different. What, gays didn't exists 1,000 years ago? Gays didn't and couldn't love each other and be only committed to one sex partner at a time?

They most likely existed, but the culture at large doesn't seem to have thought in terms of committed relationships between them. The majority only seem to have thought in terms of heterosexual=breeding life pair, homosexual=casual encounters or some kind of master-slave thing. General understandings have changed.

Finally, just decide what you are talking about. Is it actual Church teaching or not? You keep switching between church teaching and secular logic and culture. Who cares what the world thinks? That changes over time. Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change. If our perception of it changes thats because we are being conformed to it and never do we conform it to the spirit of the age. God forbid, what demonic trash!

God's truth is unchanging, but I think a case can be made for our apprehension of it being limited by the times that we live in. Perhaps a comparison to Peter realizing that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles is apt.

Quote from: Acts 11:6-17, emphasis mine
When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

True, none of this is absolute proof. But I take the combination of 1. The basic harmlessness of committed homosexual relationships and 2. The very real suffering caused by anti-gay doctrine- as a pretty strong circumstantial case for acceptance, at least.

I want to respond but I literally put it in the simplest terms possible for you. And you response is that you can't see it. There's nothing I can say to help you understand further.

Why can't God unite to two gay sex partners into one flesh is an absurd question. It defies reality that this escapes you rational mind. The same goes for asking why gay sex isn't on the same level as the monogamous married sacramental Union of one man and one woman blessed by the Church. I don't mean my comments to be hurtful or critical, I just want to make clear to you I can't explain things to you with the irrefutable concepts you've established out of nothing.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:27:39 AM
Well, see, that's the kicker. If the terms under discussion are so completely arbitrary that we can't even have a conversation about why you're using them, then how is it worth making so many people suffer grievously over them?

Do you really think that's what God wants? Do you really think that He in His infinite majesty is so hurt and offended by two people of the same sex having a relationship that He wants them condemned to a life of forced celibacy that they might not even be able to handle?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 09:13:56 AM
Well, see, that's the kicker. If the terms under discussion are so completely arbitrary that we can't even have a conversation about why you're using them, then how is it worth making so many people suffer grievously over them?

Do you really think that's what God wants? Do you really think that He in His infinite majesty is so hurt and offended by two people of the same sex having a relationship that He wants them condemned to a life of forced celibacy that they might not even be able to handle?

I'm sorry. If you'd like me to respond, you're going to have restate/rephrase. Your last response is utterly incomprehensible in context. It almost seems to me to not be written in English. I have no clue what you're saying.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 10:18:12 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 21, 2018, 10:35:29 AM
Why does the Church need that?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 10:48:36 AM
Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 21, 2018, 10:49:13 AM
I think what Christ preached was a radical transformation for humanity. We were called to love God & neighbor and treat each other by this via the golden rule. This standard does not ever seem possible in this world although we must strive for it. This still does not seem to change  what is sinful . Gays have not often been treated humanely and they can also be inhumane. Being gay or heterosexual does not guarantee a ticket to heaven or hell but I fail to see how the church can accept a sin that falls within adultery. Other clerics have countered Metr Kallistos ‘ speculation .

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 21, 2018, 10:51:34 AM
Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 10:54:01 AM
Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 11:30:48 AM
Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 11:35:09 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 11:57:03 AM
Volnutt, read this article, then come back here and tell me you have irrefutable proof that Christian moral beliefs cause gay people to commit suicide (warning, article is graphic and racy at times):
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 21, 2018, 12:48:59 PM
Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic.

+100000000

This is essentially the crux of the matter.

I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.



Also very good.  That said, even those churches that we cannot describe as being Catholic due to schisms and heresy, for example, the SBC, which we cannot say with any confidence has Catholicity, are still anle to come to the same conclusion contained in our Holy Tradition, because they at least a similiar set of scriptures to us, and the books in what their church and ours would both call the Bible, in diverse places and in many voices, condemn sexual activity between members of the same gender.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 12:53:53 PM
Thank God when others do see the Truth of Church teaching! It's tragic to see others abandon historic doctrinal positions, such as the Anglicans.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 21, 2018, 01:27:31 PM
@LakaYaRabb, it was good of you to give the information (quoted below this paragraph) in response to my post (quoted below your reply), but you don't actually answer the question I asked in my earlier post. To make the question stand out more clearly, I've put it in bold type this time. I think this is a legitimate thing to ask as the answer may (or may not) separate the Orthodox Church from other churches' teachings about how God acts in the world.

I can see where you might see an inconsistency. It's not true that the early fathers allowed divorce, quite the opposite. It was condemned and remarriage was taught adultery by many. This follows the biblical exhortation. Also, this explains why the order of widows was prevalent then.

But did something then change? No. It's true that over time second and third 'marriage' was allowed if the sake of the salvation of the souls involved. However, the church only counts one marriage as being Sacramental, a second marriage is penitential and the service thereof indicates this. In fact, it is quite a different service. There is no service for third marriage, that arrangement is merely recognized.

Also keep in mind all the canons that dealt very rigorously with divorce, adultery etc.

Jesus is not a supporter of remarriage following divorce (Matt. 19:9, if I'm reading the passage correctly), yet if I understand Church history correctly the early Fathers allow divorce and remarriage and today 3 marriages are allowed by the Church. So I'd like to ask about something in your final paragraph above. You state that 'Church teaching is Divinely Revealed and doesn't change' and that 'never do we conform it to the spirit of the age'. Yet there seems to have been both a change in (Jesus') teaching and a conformation to the spirit of the age (the early Church Fathers lived in) with regard to divorce and remarriage. This leads me to ask when Divine Revelation ceased--with the teachings of the OT, with Jesus' and Paul's NT teachings, with the Tradition established by the early Church Fathers, or is Divine Revelation still ongoing today?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 01:41:50 PM
FinnJames, I didn't mean to avoid you question, sorry if I gave that impression. I was hoping to lay out the teaching of the Church on the issue in a way, that would by relation, answer your question.
I wouldn't agree that Divine Revekation ceased or changed at all. Concisely stated second and third marriage is not a reflection that Divne Revelation, or even Church teaching changed. In fact, I'm personally (and I say personally), not confident that second and third marriage is considered dogmatic teaching in any way. It's an expansive topic, I think to accurately address and hash out your question fully. I'll admit I haven't spent the necessary time to fully address it.

On the last part of your question, the response is a firm No! Divine Revelation is not ongoing. Christ revealed all, the Church lacks nothing.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 21, 2018, 01:50:43 PM
FinnJames, I didn't mean to avoid you question, sorry if I gave that impression. I was hoping to lay out the teaching of the Church on the issue in a way, that would by relation, answer your question.
I wouldn't agree that Divine Revekation ceased or changed at all. Concisely stated second and third marriage is not a reflection that Divne Revelation, or even Church teaching changed. In fact, I'm personally (and I say personally), not confident that second and third marriage is considered dogmatic teaching in any way. It's an expansive topic, I think to accurately address and hash out your question fully. I'll admit I haven't spent the necessary time to fully address it.

On the last part of your question, the response is a firm No! Divine Revelation is not ongoing. Christ revealed all, the Church lacks nothing.

Thank you for your reply. I've put phrases from your final paragraph in bold type since I think what you state there is key to any debates on women priests or same-sex marriage in the Church.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:01:10 PM
Volnutt, read this article, then come back here and tell me you have irrefutable proof that Christian moral beliefs cause gay people to commit suicide (warning, article is graphic and racy at times):
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/

Did I say that anti-gay theology was the only thing causing gay suicide? No. I just said that it's not helping any.

Gay culture has a lot of problems. Black culture has a lot of problems. Native American culture has a lot of problems. There are solutions to all of them, even if currently difficult to find, that don't involve eradication (whether via genocide or via driving them back into the closet).

That said, the article itself hints that a lot of these problems are a hangover from the years in which gay people were far more persecuted than they still are (from the persistent PTSD-like effects of having been in the closet to straight-mirroring behavioral norms that cause divides between gay men based on levels of "butch"-ness). Let's at least wait til it's been a couple of generations since Obergefell before we declare gay culture a lost cause forever, please.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 21, 2018, 08:14:09 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 21, 2018, 08:14:33 PM
Laka knows full well that it's pretty much only extremist Christians and Muslims who still preach that gay life is totally unacceptable.

He also knows that gay people have a much higher suicide rate than the general population, especially in the U.S., which is mostly Christian.

He's just like Lady Macbeth. Can't wash the blood off his hands.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 21, 2018, 08:16:57 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

You are a funny little man.

What makes straight culture in any way beneficial?

45,000 people take their lives in the United States every year.

There are also lots of divorces and custody disputes in the U.S.

Who says American heterosexuals are happy?

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:19:00 PM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

You mean like it was the teaching of the Church that Christians weren't allowed to join the army... until it wasn't? Or that it was ok to own slaves as long as you treated them well... until it wasn't?

Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 

Sin is a choice. Being gay isn't. The Venn Diagram might actually overlap, it might be a single circle, but I'm not seeing good reasons to think it does or is. Only a lot of "just-so" stories in service of arbitrary cultural standards not dissimilar to the interracial marriage disapproval of bygone eras (the races are just too different to be compatible, it's a perversion!)

Writing "no homo" into the Creed like you seem determined to do is just as absurd as calling someone a heretic for not being a YEC.

"Prelest," on the internet, seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down disagreements.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:20:51 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

Is black culture beneficial to its members? Quite a few white conservatives would likely disagree ("Why can't they pull their pants up and quit listening to the gangsta rap?")

This is kind of a loaded question, is my point.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 21, 2018, 08:23:07 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

You are a funny little man.

What makes straight culture in any way beneficial?

45,000 people take their lives in the United States every year.

There are also lots of divorces and custody disputes in the U.S.

Who says American heterosexuals are happy?

I asked a question, desiring an answer from Volnutt.  He made a comparison of problems within the cultures of gays, blacks, and native Americans.

Suicide crosses a lot of social lines, so why do homosexuals kill themselves at a disproportionate level?  Problems, certainly.  How does that compare with blacks then?

I didn't ask if you were happy or not.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 21, 2018, 08:27:23 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

Is black culture beneficial to its members? Quite a few white conservatives would likely disagree ("Why can't they pull their pants up and quit listening to the gangsta rap?")

This is kind of a loaded question, is my point.

It would be interesting to find out how many black people kill themselves due to their culture in comparison with gays, with culture being the majority expression of a people.

This is kind of a loaded comparison, is my point.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:30:34 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

You are a funny little man.

What makes straight culture in any way beneficial?

45,000 people take their lives in the United States every year.

There are also lots of divorces and custody disputes in the U.S.

Who says American heterosexuals are happy?

I asked a question, desiring an answer from Volnutt.  He made a comparison of problems within the cultures of gays, blacks, and native Americans.

Suicide crosses a lot of social lines, so why do homosexuals kill themselves at a disproportionate level?  Problems, certainly.  How does that compare with blacks then?

I didn't ask if you were happy or not.

Why do they kill themselves disproportionately? Why do Natives drink to excess and use drugs at disproportionate levels?

Maybe because their lives often still suck and much of the world still hates them, despite things getting better (said improvements still teetering on the edge of a knife)?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 08:38:13 PM
What makes gay culture, in comparison with black culture, beneficial to its members?

Is black culture beneficial to its members? Quite a few white conservatives would likely disagree ("Why can't they pull their pants up and quit listening to the gangsta rap?")

This is kind of a loaded question, is my point.

It would be interesting to find out how many black people kill themselves due to their culture in comparison with gays, with culture being the majority expression of a people.

This is kind of a loaded comparison, is my point.

It is, I don't deny it. I don't think it's possible to approach some objective sweeping assessment of "gay culture, good or bad?" until there's been a lot of time of it being normal in most of society (if even then). We're really not there yet. Maybe Europe is closer, maybe not.

A lot of gay culture was born out of marginalization and criminalization. It's not too surprising that it has a lot of toxic elements. But I have a hard time believing that no gay person has ever derived positive experiences from it.

It's also tough to disentangle an individual's experiences from the ways that their participation in gay culture intersects with their other identities.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 09:04:51 PM
Laka knows full well that it's pretty much only extremist Christians and Muslims who still preach that gay life is totally unacceptable.

He also knows that gay people have a much higher suicide rate than the general population, especially in the U.S., which is mostly Christian.

He's just like Lady Macbeth. Can't wash the blood off his hands.

Prelest and slander.

What I know is that the Church teaches and will always teach that homosexual acts are a sin.
Those who accept and teach otherwise are not Orthodox, they are outside of the Church.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 09:06:37 PM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

You mean like it was the teaching of the Church that Christians weren't allowed to join the army... until it wasn't? Or that it was ok to own slaves as long as you treated them well... until it wasn't?

Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 

Sin is a choice. Being gay isn't. The Venn Diagram might actually overlap, it might be a single circle, but I'm not seeing good reasons to think it does or is. Only a lot of "just-so" stories in service of arbitrary cultural standards not dissimilar to the interracial marriage disapproval of bygone eras (the races are just too different to be compatible, it's a perversion!)

Writing "no homo" into the Creed like you seem determined to do is just as absurd as calling someone a heretic for not being a YEC.

"Prelest," on the internet, seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down disagreements.

You're trapped in sinful acceptance of homosexuality.
There's nothing I can say to show you that the Church does not accept that view.
Sorry!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 21, 2018, 09:43:17 PM
Laka knows full well that it's pretty much only extremist Christians and Muslims who still preach that gay life is totally unacceptable.

He also knows that gay people have a much higher suicide rate than the general population, especially in the U.S., which is mostly Christian.

He's just like Lady Macbeth. Can't wash the blood off his hands.

Prelest and slander.

What I know is that the Church teaches and will always teach that homosexual acts are a sin.
Those who accept and teach otherwise are not Orthodox, they are outside of the Church.
lol I think you’re a bit confused. At least in some places one would have to make serious efforts to be “outside the church “-whatever that means exactly.  Like funny ideas don’t automatically put one outside the church . Even I, a Byzantine atheist, could still blend in if I really wanted   The priests I know in real life could not care less about what I believe or think as long as I make a couple of gestures here and there .
The point is that one doesn’t get in and out of church in the way you imply.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 09:52:26 PM
Laka knows full well that it's pretty much only extremist Christians and Muslims who still preach that gay life is totally unacceptable.

He also knows that gay people have a much higher suicide rate than the general population, especially in the U.S., which is mostly Christian.

He's just like Lady Macbeth. Can't wash the blood off his hands.

Prelest and slander.

What I know is that the Church teaches and will always teach that homosexual acts are a sin.
Those who accept and teach otherwise are not Orthodox, they are outside of the Church.
lol I think you’re a bit confused. At least in some places one would have to make serious efforts to be “outside the church “-whatever that means exactly.  Like funny ideas don’t automatically put one outside the church . Even I, a Byzantine atheist, could still blend in if I really wanted   The priests I know in real life could not care less about what I believe or think as long as I make a couple of gestures here and there .
The point is that one doesn’t get in and out of church in the way you imply.
God will judge. Repent and Abandon your atheism. I pray you come to know Him, the One True God. Turn to Christ!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 21, 2018, 10:16:47 PM
Laka knows full well that it's pretty much only extremist Christians and Muslims who still preach that gay life is totally unacceptable.

So, homosexual kisses are okay, as long as it's women.  ::)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2018, 11:11:16 PM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

You mean like it was the teaching of the Church that Christians weren't allowed to join the army... until it wasn't? Or that it was ok to own slaves as long as you treated them well... until it wasn't?

Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 

Sin is a choice. Being gay isn't. The Venn Diagram might actually overlap, it might be a single circle, but I'm not seeing good reasons to think it does or is. Only a lot of "just-so" stories in service of arbitrary cultural standards not dissimilar to the interracial marriage disapproval of bygone eras (the races are just too different to be compatible, it's a perversion!)

Writing "no homo" into the Creed like you seem determined to do is just as absurd as calling someone a heretic for not being a YEC.

"Prelest," on the internet, seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down disagreements.

You're trapped in sinful acceptance of homosexuality.
There's nothing I can say to show you that the Church does not accept that view.
Sorry!

And I pray that any gay people you know or love aren't too hurt by the bigoted insanity that you've embraced.


See, I can play sanctimonious too :-*
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 21, 2018, 11:29:43 PM
Lord have mercy! Not sanctimonious, sincerely just sad for you.
I pray you will allow the teaching of the Church, of Our Lord, to transform your heart and help you see the Truth.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 12:50:08 AM
Lord have mercy! Not sanctimonious, sincerely just sad for you.
I pray you will allow the teaching of the Church, of Our Lord, to transform your heart and help you see the Truth.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/20/3a/25/203a25c5fec71bfe77365bc38b39f7d4.png)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 22, 2018, 01:21:24 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 01:55:59 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 22, 2018, 04:43:37 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

Maybe you are condescending and ignorant of the resolve many people may have.  https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/guys-can-be-celibate-and-enjoy-a-good-life-lbkr/

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 05:23:53 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

Maybe you are condescending and ignorant of the resolve many people may have.  https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/guys-can-be-celibate-and-enjoy-a-good-life-lbkr/

Some can, some can't (not all are gifted to celibacy, though). But forcing all gay people to do so categorically is cruel. Perhaps it's a necessary cruelty, but it should still be called what it is.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 22, 2018, 06:10:18 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

Maybe you are condescending and ignorant of the resolve many people may have.  https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/guys-can-be-celibate-and-enjoy-a-good-life-lbkr/

Some can, some can't (not all are gifted to celibacy, though). But forcing all gay people to do so categorically is cruel. Perhaps it's a necessary cruelty, but it should still be called what it is.

+1

Since on one else seems to want to bring it up here, I'm wondering what you all make of footnote 6 in Metr. Kallistos Ware's foreword (linked below) mentioned in the OP.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d0df1ee4b036ef1e44b144/t/5b199e5f03ce64a767c66c7f/1528405608178/%2313%3A14+Foreword.pdf (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d0df1ee4b036ef1e44b144/t/5b199e5f03ce64a767c66c7f/1528405608178/%2313%3A14+Foreword.pdf)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:34:10 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

You know what's crueler than being gay?
How about being born with low-performance autism - which, with the friends of my family, caused a divorce due to financial management issues and infighting.

What about being born with visual schizophrenia? Or severe, incurable seizures? How about clinical depression? How about people getting incurable cancer?

The world is filled with suffering - but we just have to suck it up, trust in God, and be the best people we can be.

It's a lie - and a heresy - to believe that the world can be cured of all of it's problems merely by forcing society and the government to act a certain way. We are too selfish and flawed to fix it.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:37:59 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

You mean like it was the teaching of the Church that Christians weren't allowed to join the army... until it wasn't? Or that it was ok to own slaves as long as you treated them well... until it wasn't?

Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 

Sin is a choice. Being gay isn't. The Venn Diagram might actually overlap, it might be a single circle, but I'm not seeing good reasons to think it does or is. Only a lot of "just-so" stories in service of arbitrary cultural standards not dissimilar to the interracial marriage disapproval of bygone eras (the races are just too different to be compatible, it's a perversion!)

Writing "no homo" into the Creed like you seem determined to do is just as absurd as calling someone a heretic for not being a YEC.

"Prelest," on the internet, seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down disagreements.

You're trapped in sinful acceptance of homosexuality.
There's nothing I can say to show you that the Church does not accept that view.
Sorry!

And I pray that any gay people you know or love aren't too hurt by the bigoted insanity that you've embraced.


See, I can play sanctimonious too :-*

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."

If in your opinion Christ's Church holds to the doctrine of bigotry, and by extension Christ Himself was the ultimate bigot - than I hope I can be the biggest bigot possible.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 06:42:47 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

You know what's crueler than being gay?
How about being born with low-performance autism - which, with the friends of my family, caused a divorce due to financial management issues and infighting.

What about being born with visual schizophrenia? Or severe, incurable seizures? How about clinical depression? How about people getting incurable cancer?

The world is filled with suffering - but we just have to suck it up, trust in God, and be the best people we can be.

It's a lie - and a heresy - to believe that the world can be cured of all of it's problems merely by forcing society and the government to act a certain way. We are too selfish and flawed to fix it.

Yes, life is cruel. That's why we shouldn't make it even more cruel unless we absolutely have to.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 06:45:34 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."

The Church lacks nothing. See the Creed where we profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Church is Catholic, it's complete, it has the fullness of Truth.

Within the teaching of the Truth is that homosexual acts are a sin. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. There cannot be gay "marriage", no matter what the world says.

You mean like it was the teaching of the Church that Christians weren't allowed to join the army... until it wasn't? Or that it was ok to own slaves as long as you treated them well... until it wasn't?

Why does the Church need that?

Because causing unnecessary suffering that often leads to suicide is not a good thing. If the most lurid fantasies of those that imagine that gay couples are all Satanist child molesters having insane coke orgies, I would agree that it should be prohibited. But it's not. It's just normal, consenting adults who just want to live their dang lives.

How is any of that the Church's fault?

It's not. But threatening them with Hell unless they pretend to not be gay (or try to beat themselves into becoming straight) doesn't help matters any.

This is the definition of prelest.
Sin is a choice. If you choose to live in sin and die unrepentant of sin, Christ Himself teaches that you condemn yourself because you willfully separate yourself from God.

Pretending that sin is not sin is demonic. 

Sin is a choice. Being gay isn't. The Venn Diagram might actually overlap, it might be a single circle, but I'm not seeing good reasons to think it does or is. Only a lot of "just-so" stories in service of arbitrary cultural standards not dissimilar to the interracial marriage disapproval of bygone eras (the races are just too different to be compatible, it's a perversion!)

Writing "no homo" into the Creed like you seem determined to do is just as absurd as calling someone a heretic for not being a YEC.

"Prelest," on the internet, seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down disagreements.

You're trapped in sinful acceptance of homosexuality.
There's nothing I can say to show you that the Church does not accept that view.
Sorry!

And I pray that any gay people you know or love aren't too hurt by the bigoted insanity that you've embraced.


See, I can play sanctimonious too :-*

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."

If in your opinion Christ's Church holds to the doctrine of bigotry, and by extension Christ Himself was the ultimate bigot - than I hope I can be the biggest bigot possible.

It's not like Christ didn't offend anybody.

Hey, if you want to serve the Jesus of Fred Phelps, go for it. I'm sure you'll do him proud. Just be honest and stop claiming that you're doing it out of love.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:49:07 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 06:52:02 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.

As if there's a substantive, real world difference between "God Hates Fags" and "welcome to your new life of forced celibacy, have you thought about auto-castration?" Only in the world of words.

Maybe this is one of Alpha's beloved points of agreement across confessional lines.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:53:38 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

You know what's crueler than being gay?
How about being born with low-performance autism - which, with the friends of my family, caused a divorce due to financial management issues and infighting.

What about being born with visual schizophrenia? Or severe, incurable seizures? How about clinical depression? How about people getting incurable cancer?

The world is filled with suffering - but we just have to suck it up, trust in God, and be the best people we can be.

It's a lie - and a heresy - to believe that the world can be cured of all of it's problems merely by forcing society and the government to act a certain way. We are too selfish and flawed to fix it.

Yes, life is cruel. That's why we shouldn't make it even more cruel unless we absolutely have to.

Well, that begs the question of the results of cruelty that can be made apparent hypothetically, after same-sex marriage becomes acceptable.

Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that heterosexual couples are restricted by the Church in terms of sexual relationships compared to same-sex couples? Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that children will not have the dynamic of having both a mother and a father to help raise them? Especially for children of the opposite sex who go through puberty and may not receive the answers they are looking for? What about the children in terms of finding a Faith in God - the fact that it would be harder in the sight of clear contradiction by what the Church, the Bible, the Church Fathers, and even some Apocrypha text which some Church Fathers say is canon to believe in God and restrain their passions, ending up in a miserable state of life? Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them? Is it fair for the children of bisexual women to have a higher risk of HIV and death? Is it fair that these people can have clearly unnatural sexual attraction for the same sex, while I can't screw my own animals? Etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:54:21 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.

As if there's a substantive, real world difference between "God Hates Fags" and "welcome to your new life of forced celibacy, have you thought about auto-castration?" Only in the world of words.

Maybe this is one of Alpha's beloved points of agreement across confessional lines.

There's a huge difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between "God hates sluts" and "You can't have sex before marriage."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 06:57:43 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.

As if there's a substantive, real world difference between "God Hates Fags" and "welcome to your new life of forced celibacy, have you thought about auto-castration?" Only in the world of words.

Maybe this is one of Alpha's beloved points of agreement across confessional lines.

There's a huge difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between "God hates whores" and "You can't have sex before marriage."

Except that there's nobody whose sexuality is dependent on getting paid for it such that they're incapable of having a relationship without it. Forcing celibacy on somebody who isn't cut out for it is a hateful act, even if you're not saying the word "hate."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 22, 2018, 06:59:12 AM
Is it hateful and cruel to ask people not to sin?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 06:59:45 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.

As if there's a substantive, real world difference between "God Hates Fags" and "welcome to your new life of forced celibacy, have you thought about auto-castration?" Only in the world of words.

Maybe this is one of Alpha's beloved points of agreement across confessional lines.

There's a huge difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between "God hates whores" and "You can't have sex before marriage."

Except that there's nobody whose sexuality is dependent on getting paid for it such that they're incapable of having a relationship without it. Forcing celibacy on somebody who isn't cut out for it is a hateful act, even if you're not saying the word "hate."

You know, virtually all the Saints who were the monastics and bishops in the Church were called to celibacy by God to their death. Was God being unnaturally cruel to the folks of Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine for example?

Both of these Saints gawked at the fact that they weren't allowed to have sex, and had a huge trouble and struggle in obtaining celibacy.

In fact, Saint Benedict had a rough time, such that he found it necessary to roll in a thorny bush naked in order to restrain his passions.

"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:05:43 AM
Well, believe it or not - the Westboro Baptist Church is actually not part of Christ's Church in what She teaches.

As if there's a substantive, real world difference between "God Hates Fags" and "welcome to your new life of forced celibacy, have you thought about auto-castration?" Only in the world of words.

Maybe this is one of Alpha's beloved points of agreement across confessional lines.

There's a huge difference.

It's like saying there's no difference between "God hates whores" and "You can't have sex before marriage."

Except that there's nobody whose sexuality is dependent on getting paid for it such that they're incapable of having a relationship without it. Forcing celibacy on somebody who isn't cut out for it is a hateful act, even if you're not saying the word "hate."

You know, virtually all the Saints who were the monastics and bishops in the Church were called to celibacy by God to their death. Was God being unnaturally cruel to the folks of Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine for example?

Both of these Saints gawked at the fact that they weren't allowed to have sex, and had a huge trouble and struggle in obtaining celibacy.

In fact, Saint Benedict had a rough time, such that he found it necessary to roll in a thorny bush naked in order to restrain his passions.

"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

All done as part of monasticism. Are you suggesting that ALL homosexuals are called to monasticism? That seems... highly unlikely.

Even if so, it's something for them to discern on their own. The Church thrusting monasticism on an entire class of people as a condition of even becoming Christian doesn't make much sense.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 07:07:58 AM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:11:34 AM
Is it hateful and cruel to ask people not to sin?

No. Which is why the manifest cruelty involved in prohibiting homosexuality (which on its own is not clearly harmful) indicates to me that it's not, in fact, a sin.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: LivenotoneviL on June 22, 2018, 07:12:32 AM
I have to go for now, but I will pick up this discussion later tonight. Thanks for the conversation, Volnutt.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:17:26 AM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?

God asks difficult things of individuals (and all the individuals you've named also had their sexual struggles in a monastic context). I don't see Him handing down sweeping mandates to all people of a particular grouping no matter what.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:18:05 AM
I have to go for now, but I will pick up this discussion later tonight. Thanks for the conversation, Volnutt.

You too. Have a good day.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 22, 2018, 07:18:41 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

You know what's crueler than being gay?
How about being born with low-performance autism - which, with the friends of my family, caused a divorce due to financial management issues and infighting.

What about being born with visual schizophrenia? Or severe, incurable seizures? How about clinical depression? How about people getting incurable cancer?

The world is filled with suffering - but we just have to suck it up, trust in God, and be the best people we can be.

It's a lie - and a heresy - to believe that the world can be cured of all of it's problems merely by forcing society and the government to act a certain way. We are too selfish and flawed to fix it.

Yes, life is cruel. That's why we shouldn't make it even more cruel unless we absolutely have to.

Well, that begs the question of the results of cruelty that can be made apparent hypothetically, after same-sex marriage becomes acceptable.

Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that heterosexual couples are restricted by the Church in terms of sexual relationships compared to same-sex couples? Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that children will not have the dynamic of having both a mother and a father to help raise them? Especially for children of the opposite sex who go through puberty and may not receive the answers they are looking for? What about the children in terms of finding a Faith in God - the fact that it would be harder in the sight of clear contradiction by what the Church, the Bible, the Church Fathers, and even some Apocrypha text which some Church Fathers say is canon to believe in God and restrain their passions, ending up in a miserable state of life? Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them? Is it fair for the children of bisexual women to have a higher risk of HIV and death? Is it fair that these people can have clearly unnatural sexual attraction for the same sex, while I can't screw my own animals? Etc. etc. etc.

If this is your temptation you need to talk to your priest asap.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:39:02 AM
I submit that, given the suffering that anti-gay theology causes to gay Christians (especially the ones who don't have the gift of celibacy), the Church needs a far better reason to ban homosexuality than "just because they're the same sex."
Some people suffer because they have a really hard time trying to be faithful to one single person in their whole life too, what's the difference?

The difference is that they at least have somebody. Gay people who are trying to force themselves to be celibate don't have anyone that they could be with even theoretically. I'm operating off a principle of doing the least harm possible.

You know what's crueler than being gay?
How about being born with low-performance autism - which, with the friends of my family, caused a divorce due to financial management issues and infighting.

What about being born with visual schizophrenia? Or severe, incurable seizures? How about clinical depression? How about people getting incurable cancer?

The world is filled with suffering - but we just have to suck it up, trust in God, and be the best people we can be.

It's a lie - and a heresy - to believe that the world can be cured of all of it's problems merely by forcing society and the government to act a certain way. We are too selfish and flawed to fix it.

Yes, life is cruel. That's why we shouldn't make it even more cruel unless we absolutely have to.

Well, that begs the question of the results of cruelty that can be made apparent hypothetically, after same-sex marriage becomes acceptable.

Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that heterosexual couples are restricted by the Church in terms of sexual relationships compared to same-sex couples? Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that children will not have the dynamic of having both a mother and a father to help raise them? Especially for children of the opposite sex who go through puberty and may not receive the answers they are looking for? What about the children in terms of finding a Faith in God - the fact that it would be harder in the sight of clear contradiction by what the Church, the Bible, the Church Fathers, and even some Apocrypha text which some Church Fathers say is canon to believe in God and restrain their passions, ending up in a miserable state of life? Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them? Is it fair for the children of bisexual women to have a higher risk of HIV and death? Is it fair that these people can have clearly unnatural sexual attraction for the same sex, while I can't screw my own animals? Etc. etc. etc.

I didn't see this till now. Kind of a Gish Gallop, to be honest, but briefly:

Quote
Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that heterosexual couples are restricted by the Church in terms of sexual relationships compared to same-sex couples?

I don't know what you mean.

Quote
Isn't it unnecessarily cruel that children will not have the dynamic of having both a mother and a father to help raise them? Especially for children of the opposite sex who go through puberty and may not receive the answers they are looking for?

Assumes a level of gender essentialism that I'm not sure is clearly evident. Ignores the influence of other relatives, the community, etc. in raising children.

Quote
What about the children in terms of finding a Faith in God - the fact that it would be harder in the sight of clear contradiction by what the Church, the Bible, the Church Fathers, and even some Apocrypha text which some Church Fathers say is canon to believe in God and restrain their passions, ending up in a miserable state of life?

First of all, you're kind of begging the question. Second, faith in God is pretty difficult anyway just owing to the [insert complex apologetics issue here]. One more issue on top of the pile sucks, but I'm not sure it really compares to the suffering it's alleviating.

Quote
Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them?

You mean like how they already change in front of bisexuals?

It's possible, though difficult, to consider trans issues separately from gay ones. I'll bite that bullet if I have to, though I don't want to.

Quote
Is it fair for the children of bisexual women to have a higher risk of HIV and death?

How do we know that being the children of bisexual women is what causes this risk? There's some blanks here that need to be filled in.

Quote
Is it fair that these people can have clearly unnatural sexual attraction for the same sex, while I can't screw my own animals?

Bestiality is not a relationship. At best it's just a form of masturbation. At worst it's the rape of a being that can't comprehend sex on the same level as we do.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Arachne on June 22, 2018, 07:51:49 AM
Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them?

You mean it has never crossed your mind that some of the other men changing with you in your all-male bathroom might already be sexually attracted to you?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 22, 2018, 09:03:25 AM
In the Garden:
Eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God wants you to. He has forbade you because He doesn't want you to be like Him. Just second guess His Word.

Other Historical revisions:
Fornication isn't a sin. People can't help having sex, men and women have a burning desire, its cruel to force them to live without sex. The Church should change its teaching. Sex is natural.

A fetus isn't a baby. Abortion isn't a sin. Its cruel to force a woman to have stay pregnant and give birth when she doesn't want too. Her body, her choice. The Church should change its teaching.

Love is Love. Two homosexuals are the same as two heterosexuals. Homosexual sex is not a sin and homosexuality isn't sinful. People don't have a choice. Its cruel to say its a sin. The Church should change its teaching.


The argument that condemning homosexual acts as sin is cruel is just another demonic lie from the deceiver. Literally every one uses that argument to justify accepting sin and try and force the Church to change its teaching.

"If you say homosexuality is sinful people will kill themselves, its cruel"
A disgusting argument that is. I'm being held hostage and forced to act and believe a certain way or people will kill themselves. Demonic deception and mental illness.
I'm not cruel or attempting to be cruel, I do care about everyone. To arbitrarily accuse me (or anyone of being cruel) is the actual cruelty. It also essentially makes cruelty subjective, which its not. Its not cruelty to keep the teaching of Christ.

When you make something subjective, such as this topic, you veer us off into the realm of absurdity. If saying homosexuality is a sin is cruelty, saying anything that some one feels is painful or hurtful is cruelty. If that's the case, then cruelty is subject to the whims of emotions and feels.

What's additionally non-sensical is that idea that saying homosexuality is sinful is cruelty because is offers a sweeping proscription "forced celibacy" of a group of people (homosexuals). The actual generalization here is speaking unilaterally for homosexuals. You deny free will of individual persons when you say they will always act a certain way and cannot change. This is a Category mistake. Each person is an individual person.

Personally, as a priest, I treat everyone as an individual person. This is how the Church treats them as well. The Truth of Christ does not change. If someone who is gay comes to me and asks for guidance, I don't rebuke them, or throw them out of the Church. I work with them. Just like I do with everyone. Ultimately, the vision is the same: being conformed to Christ. One cannot be conformed to Christ if they have placed a sin as a barrier to that transformation.

The claim is that its cruel to say homosexuality is a sin because gay people can't change? If you can't change, you can't be a Christian. The world must be put off for you to be in Christ.

But what you mean is that homosexuals cannot change their desire to have sex with people of the same gender. Whether or not its advisable or whether or not a individual person is capable of this, the idea that they can't control or purify their desires is erroneous. Disordered passions must be purified to enter into the kingdom. Homosexual desires, desires of adultery, fornication, greed, etc. etc.

But it's cruel to force homosexuals to be celibate.
No one is forcing anyone to be celibate. They could get married an have children. Marriage is a vocation. Better to marry than burn with lust. Embracing a vocation means doing the hard work of salvation and suffering. If we want to enter the kingdom, we can only do that by the Cross. It's possible for a homosexual to get married and have children and be happy and not go back to the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality. Some gay people have done that. It really does happen and it is possible. It requires the same work as anyone struggling against a specific sin/passion in their spiritual life. Honesty, commitment, struggle, Confession, repentance.

Homosexuality is a sin. Our Lord offers us the remedy to this sin and all sins; Grace, Mercy, Love, and Peace. This is only found for us all in Him and living His teaching.

"There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the two Ways...Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou didst receive, "Adding nothing to it and taking nothing away."In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life."   

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 22, 2018, 10:13:19 AM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?

God asks difficult things of individuals (and all the individuals you've named also had their sexual struggles in a monastic context). I don't see Him handing down sweeping mandates to all people of a particular grouping no matter what.

Christ only told all humanity to be perfect. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 22, 2018, 01:05:07 PM
Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them?

You mean it has never crossed your mind that some of the other men changing with you in your all-male bathroom might already be sexually attracted to you?

or that a good number of homosexual men changing with you might find not find you sexually attractive or might even find you repulsive.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 22, 2018, 01:13:38 PM
Personally, as a priest, I treat everyone as an individual person.

Just out of curiosity, isn't there a forum rule that requires clergy to identify themselves as such in their profile?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Arachne on June 22, 2018, 01:28:28 PM
Is it fair for heterosexuals to fix the bathroom problem and to have to get changed in front of someone sexually attracted to them?

You mean it has never crossed your mind that some of the other men changing with you in your all-male bathroom might already be sexually attracted to you?

or that a good number of homosexual men changing with you might find not find you sexually attractive or might even find you repulsive.

Well, my train of thought was that in any possible bathroom configuration, there will be people who are sexually attracted to other users of the same, but this is a valid point to keep in mind as well.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 22, 2018, 04:51:03 PM
Better hide your goods in WC's
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 22, 2018, 05:59:17 PM
Personally, as a priest, I treat everyone as an individual person.

Just out of curiosity, isn't there a forum rule that requires clergy to identify themselves as such in their profile?

I've not really been a frequent poster here, so I'm not familiar with the rules (280 posts over 10 years, I joined back in 2008).
I haven't really posted since I was ordained, but to answer, I don't think that's the case. But, I have asked, just today, to have my profile name changed to reflect me being a priest.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:28:54 PM
In the Garden:
Eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God wants you to. He has forbade you because He doesn't want you to be like Him. Just second guess His Word.

Other Historical revisions:
Fornication isn't a sin. People can't help having sex, men and women have a burning desire, its cruel to force them to live without sex. The Church should change its teaching. Sex is natural.

A fetus isn't a baby. Abortion isn't a sin. Its cruel to force a woman to have stay pregnant and give birth when she doesn't want too. Her body, her choice. The Church should change its teaching.

Love is Love. Two homosexuals are the same as two heterosexuals. Homosexual sex is not a sin and homosexuality isn't sinful. People don't have a choice. Its cruel to say its a sin. The Church should change its teaching.


The argument that condemning homosexual acts as sin is cruel is just another demonic lie from the deceiver. Literally every one uses that argument to justify accepting sin and try and force the Church to change its teaching.

"If you say homosexuality is sinful people will kill themselves, its cruel"
A disgusting argument that is. I'm being held hostage and forced to act and believe a certain way or people will kill themselves. Demonic deception and mental illness.
I'm not cruel or attempting to be cruel, I do care about everyone. To arbitrarily accuse me (or anyone of being cruel) is the actual cruelty. It also essentially makes cruelty subjective, which its not. Its not cruelty to keep the teaching of Christ.

When you make something subjective, such as this topic, you veer us off into the realm of absurdity. If saying homosexuality is a sin is cruelty, saying anything that some one feels is painful or hurtful is cruelty. If that's the case, then cruelty is subject to the whims of emotions and feels.

What's additionally non-sensical is that idea that saying homosexuality is sinful is cruelty because is offers a sweeping proscription "forced celibacy" of a group of people (homosexuals). The actual generalization here is speaking unilaterally for homosexuals. You deny free will of individual persons when you say they will always act a certain way and cannot change. This is a Category mistake. Each person is an individual person.

Personally, as a priest, I treat everyone as an individual person. This is how the Church treats them as well. The Truth of Christ does not change. If someone who is gay comes to me and asks for guidance, I don't rebuke them, or throw them out of the Church. I work with them. Just like I do with everyone. Ultimately, the vision is the same: being conformed to Christ. One cannot be conformed to Christ if they have placed a sin as a barrier to that transformation.

The claim is that its cruel to say homosexuality is a sin because gay people can't change? If you can't change, you can't be a Christian. The world must be put off for you to be in Christ.

But what you mean is that homosexuals cannot change their desire to have sex with people of the same gender. Whether or not its advisable or whether or not a individual person is capable of this, the idea that they can't control or purify their desires is erroneous. Disordered passions must be purified to enter into the kingdom. Homosexual desires, desires of adultery, fornication, greed, etc. etc.

But it's cruel to force homosexuals to be celibate.
No one is forcing anyone to be celibate. They could get married an have children. Marriage is a vocation. Better to marry than burn with lust. Embracing a vocation means doing the hard work of salvation and suffering. If we want to enter the kingdom, we can only do that by the Cross. It's possible for a homosexual to get married and have children and be happy and not go back to the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality. Some gay people have done that. It really does happen and it is possible. It requires the same work as anyone struggling against a specific sin/passion in their spiritual life. Honesty, commitment, struggle, Confession, repentance.

Homosexuality is a sin. Our Lord offers us the remedy to this sin and all sins; Grace, Mercy, Love, and Peace. This is only found for us all in Him and living His teaching.

"There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the two Ways...Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou didst receive, "Adding nothing to it and taking nothing away."In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life."

I'm tired of answering rambles. There's no good evidence that homosexuality can be cured, people have been trying everything from shock treatment to counseling to "just get married to the opposite sex and hope it sticks" for decades.

That in itself doesn't mean that homosexuals should not be forced to be celibate, but it does weigh against the idea.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:33:03 PM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?

God asks difficult things of individuals (and all the individuals you've named also had their sexual struggles in a monastic context). I don't see Him handing down sweeping mandates to all people of a particular grouping no matter what.

Christ only told all humanity to be perfect.

And that call to perfection manifests differently for different individuals. Celibacy is a cross that not all are called to bare, and that's something that the individual (gay or straight) needs to discern for themselves. Trying to generalize it to an entire class of people doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on June 22, 2018, 07:42:24 PM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?

God asks difficult things of individuals (and all the individuals you've named also had their sexual struggles in a monastic context). I don't see Him handing down sweeping mandates to all people of a particular grouping no matter what.

Christ only told all humanity to be perfect.

And that call to perfection manifests differently for different individuals. Celibacy is a cross that not all are called to bare, and that's something that the individual (gay or straight) needs to discern for themselves. Trying to generalize it to an entire class of people doesn't make any sense.

is it not worth trying? We are suppose to pick up our crosses, and follow him, not just say "hey Christ, can we have Gay Marriage, because that couple across the street are "nice", celibacy is too rough on them" what about Masturbation, Pornographers, etc.  allow them communion if they don't confess repent, and do their penance.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 07:57:11 PM
I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting that God calls us to suffer and do difficult things, and we become better people because of it. Saint Paul was essentially a murderer, and Saint Peter was a fisherman - yet both were called by God and traveled around the known world and spread the Gospel, and both of whom were persecuted, suffered, and were murdered - yet they are both examples of a life to model after.

Once again,
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

Why do priests where Crosses again?

God asks difficult things of individuals (and all the individuals you've named also had their sexual struggles in a monastic context). I don't see Him handing down sweeping mandates to all people of a particular grouping no matter what.

Christ only told all humanity to be perfect.

And that call to perfection manifests differently for different individuals. Celibacy is a cross that not all are called to bare, and that's something that the individual (gay or straight) needs to discern for themselves. Trying to generalize it to an entire class of people doesn't make any sense.

is it not worth trying? We are suppose to pick up our crosses, and follow him, not just say "hey Christ, can we have Gay Marriage, because that couple across the street are "nice", celibacy is too rough on them"

Like I said, it's something for every individual to prayerfully figure out on their own. But the current practice is to essentially force it on all gay people who want to be Christian, regardless of their individual circumstances.

Btw, why is nice in scare quotes?

what about Masturbation, Pornographers, etc.  allow them communion if they don't confess repent, and do their penance.

The crucial mitigating factor there is that straight people who masturbate, watch porn, etc. still have a normal path for their sexuality (theoretically) open to them.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 22, 2018, 10:17:17 PM
But why label people as gay? If they want a little butty every once in a while. Or the other way around.
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away. Some gay people I know also like girls. Bisexual is more prominent these days.
So as la la la says. The act is the determining factor.  There is no such thing as gay genes.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2018, 11:06:50 PM
But why label people as gay? If they want a little butty every once in a while. Or the other way around.
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away. Some gay people I know also like girls. Bisexual is more prominent these days.
So as la la la says. The act is the determining factor.  There is no such thing as gay genes.

I didn't say there was a gay gene. It's likely a combination of several factors, but it's not something that it seems like we can forcibly change. So in that sense, yes it is a bit like skin color.

Some people are truly bisexual. Some are but don't like the label for whatever reason (language can be inexact). Some are gay or straight for 90% of their lives and attracted to someone else only once or twice ever (does it really make sense to call them bisexual in that case?). But again, complexity does not mean it can be switched on and off like a light.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: recent convert on June 23, 2018, 12:08:22 AM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jetavan on June 23, 2018, 12:17:43 AM
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away.
Due to how “blackness” has been defined in U.S. history, a “black” person can have a range of skin colors, from very light (practically indistinguishable from “white”) to very dark. Thus, a person can be socially viewed as “black” in one context, and that same person can also be seen as a “white” in another context. This socially defined process of racial transformation is called ”passing for white” (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america). Over a couple of generations, a “black” family can transform (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/descendants-of-st-black-u-s-doctor-mark-nyc-grave/article_1d7bb209-febd-5075-aea5-d3e08800bc2d.html) into a “white” family.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 23, 2018, 12:24:32 AM
Personally, as a priest, I treat everyone as an individual person.

Just out of curiosity, isn't there a forum rule that requires clergy to identify themselves as such in their profile?

I've not really been a frequent poster here, so I'm not familiar with the rules (280 posts over 10 years, I joined back in 2008).
I haven't really posted since I was ordained, but to answer, I don't think that's the case. But, I have asked, just today, to have my profile name changed to reflect me being a priest.

Thanks for doing that. Everyone who posts on this board seems to have very strong opinions set in stone about almost every topic. It's good to know who can back their thoughts up with the experience of serving as a parish priest. Of course I'm not saying that priests are right about everything, but priests--at least the ones in my parish--do tend to know Church teachings and how to apply them in daily life better than the rest of us.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on June 23, 2018, 02:57:58 AM
Due to how “blackness” has been defined in U.S. history, a “black” person can have a range of skin colors, from very light (practically indistinguishable from “white”) to very dark. Thus, a person can be socially viewed as “black” in one context, and that same person can also be seen as a “white” in another context. This socially defined process of racial transformation is called ”passing for white” (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america). Over a couple of generations, a “black” family can transform (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/descendants-of-st-black-u-s-doctor-mark-nyc-grave/article_1d7bb209-febd-5075-aea5-d3e08800bc2d.html) into a “white” family.
The philosopher Joaquim Nabuco considered his friend, the mulatto writer Machado de Assis (rich, famous and erudite) to be not only white, but "Greekish", despite his "strange blood", and Machado's death certificate even listed him as white. Some of his pictures were literally whitewashed to make him look less black, since everyone considered him to be white (as, you know, only white people could write, so if Machado was a great writer, he was definitely white).

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNE0LJQjqDA0KB3AYeCbJrx7V-s8FYPRZdbkYwMdwsBfuRi06d)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 23, 2018, 04:05:53 AM
The philosopher Joaquim Nabuco considered his friend, the mulatto writer Machado de Assis (rich, famous and erudite) to be not only white, but "Greekish", despite his "strange blood", and Machado's death certificate even listed him as white. Some of his pictures were literally whitewashed to make him look less black, since everyone considered him to be white (as, you know, only white people could write, so if Machado was a great writer, he was definitely white).

In the context of this thread, it's interesting to note how many literary critics until recently denied American poet Walt Whitman's homosexuality, though it is fairly clear in his poetry and crystal clear in his diary writing. Perhaps it wasn't so much that blacks/homosexuals can't write as that whites/heterosexuals couldn't respect a gifted writer unlike themselves.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 23, 2018, 06:42:41 AM
But why label people as gay? If they want a little butty every once in a while. Or the other way around.
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away. Some gay people I know also like girls. Bisexual is more prominent these days.
So as la la la says. The act is the determining factor.  There is no such thing as gay genes.

I didn't say there was a gay gene. It's likely a combination of several factors, but it's not something that it seems like we can forcibly change. So in that sense, yes it is a bit like skin color.

Some people are truly bisexual. Some are but don't like the label for whatever reason (language can be inexact). Some are gay or straight for 90% of their lives and attracted to someone else only once or twice ever (does it really make sense to call them bisexual in that case?). But again, complexity does not mean it can be switched on and off like a light.
One can argue that it's a mental decision to be gay. Just like when someone chooses profession and fits into the part of there profession.  Like a dr. for instance. Surrounding ones self in the practice of a particular activity will incorporate that activity into a person's character.
Or like a person who steals from a young age and incorporates the activity into there personally.  Labelled as a thief forever unless they stop the negative action.
All character traits are is learnt behavior. One takes a behavior they like and makes it there own.  Whether its positive or negative is judged by an authority or individuals. All people are is a communion or a club with sets of rules. Depending on the club one belongs too determines who a person is to an extent. 

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Tzimis on June 23, 2018, 06:51:39 AM
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away.
Due to how “blackness” has been defined in U.S. history, a “black” person can have a range of skin colors, from very light (practically indistinguishable from “white”) to very dark. Thus, a person can be socially viewed as “black” in one context, and that same person can also be seen as a “white” in another context. This socially defined process of racial transformation is called ”passing for white” (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america). Over a couple of generations, a “black” family can transform (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/descendants-of-st-black-u-s-doctor-mark-nyc-grave/article_1d7bb209-febd-5075-aea5-d3e08800bc2d.html) into a “white” family.
Im sure this happened more than once. South America has a very diverse population where European whites have interacted with blacks and indigenous Americans over many generations.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Opus118 on June 23, 2018, 02:53:17 PM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.
This makes sense if I take out the first "not" (I have a hard time figuring out  double negatives).
In the last paragraph, I would distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual acts in the same way as heterosexuality and heterosexual acts. I personally feel that even in marriage, if there is no love and you are not "one" with your spouse, then having sex is wrong. I have been chaste for ~20 years because of this.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 23, 2018, 03:49:27 PM
Is it hateful and cruel to ask people not to sin?

Judging by the feedback here, yes. It seems some people want traditional teachings changed, and all.of society to go against human nature. All for the purpose of allowing sinful people who by most accounts arent religious at all to have no restraints.

Like ive said before, where does it stop? We've already seen Gay marriage being made law, now its transgender rights, and demands to have our religious freedoms taken away if it offends someone with no religious morals. Where does it stop?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 23, 2018, 04:29:59 PM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.

By "force," I mean "threaten with Hell if they don't deny their homosexuality." It's spiritual coercion, if you will.

Though given the rising tide of world reactionarism, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody out there does want to bring back the Code of Justinian. Then again, part of the reason that we can't have peaceful conversations anymore is that both sides assume the other is on the verge of taking over and killing them, so who knows?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 23, 2018, 04:32:28 PM
But why label people as gay? If they want a little butty every once in a while. Or the other way around.
Its not like a black person.  They can't take there color away. Some gay people I know also like girls. Bisexual is more prominent these days.
So as la la la says. The act is the determining factor.  There is no such thing as gay genes.

I didn't say there was a gay gene. It's likely a combination of several factors, but it's not something that it seems like we can forcibly change. So in that sense, yes it is a bit like skin color.

Some people are truly bisexual. Some are but don't like the label for whatever reason (language can be inexact). Some are gay or straight for 90% of their lives and attracted to someone else only once or twice ever (does it really make sense to call them bisexual in that case?). But again, complexity does not mean it can be switched on and off like a light.
One can argue that it's a mental decision to be gay. Just like when someone chooses profession and fits into the part of there profession.  Like a dr. for instance. Surrounding ones self in the practice of a particular activity will incorporate that activity into a person's character.
Or like a person who steals from a young age and incorporates the activity into there personally.  Labelled as a thief forever unless they stop the negative action.
All character traits are is learnt behavior. One takes a behavior they like and makes it there own.  Whether its positive or negative is judged by an authority or individuals. All people are is a communion or a club with sets of rules. Depending on the club one belongs too determines who a person is to an extent.

If it's a decision in any sense, then it's one that's made at a very early age in conjunction with powerful environmental and/or genetic influences. It doesn't necessarily follow though, that it's a river that can just be "uncrossed." Things are a little more complex than that.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 23, 2018, 04:39:31 PM
One may make a decision to have sex, but one doesn't get to choose what orientation one is.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 23, 2018, 04:57:10 PM
Quote
I'm tired of answering rambles.

Then don't.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 23, 2018, 05:10:52 PM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.

By "force," I mean "threaten with Hell if they don't deny their homosexuality." It's spiritual coercion, if you will.

Though given the rising tide of world reactionarism, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody out there does want to bring back the Code of Justinian. Then again, part of the reason that we can't have peaceful conversations anymore is that both sides assume the other is on the verge of taking over and killing them, so who knows?

After donating some significant headspace to thinking about it, I actually agree with you Volute. I think we need to address the reality of people who are in a long lasting committed relationship based on love with only one another. They shouldn't be forced or coerced into celibacy, especially when personal experience tells them they can't be celibate. They have now chosen to be in a relationship with just one person of the same-sex and are now committed to a sexual relationship with just that one person. You are also right, I think, that this arrangement is now, not only legal, widely accepted as being just the same as heterosexual marriage.

The Church does need to address this. Some of these same-sex couples are already professing Orthodox Christians and desire to live as such IN the Church. They don't want to be seen as second class citizens. When we see it this way, we are starting at the point of addressing their needs and desires. We are starting at the point that they come to us.

Its the wrong point to start at. Why do they want to be Orthodox Christian? Because they believe its the True Faith? Well, the True Faith can't be wrong and the True Faith is that homosexuality is a sin. There is no possibility to bless same-sex "marriage" because that arrangement isn't marriage. Why seek to be a member of a Church that teaches your lifestyle choice is a sin?

Further, no one is forcing them to be Orthodox. It's not the State Religion. They are free to live as the please in this country and pretty much globally. No one forced them to be celibate.

If a homosexual person wants to be Orthodox, they must renounce their all their delusions and sins, just as all of us must do. Gay, straight, rich, poor, arrogant, fornicators, gluttons, adluterers etc. etc. All men must renounce sin. It's the ONLY way into the Kingdom.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Volnutt on June 23, 2018, 07:15:12 PM
I felt like I needed to stand up in this thread for the gay people I know. But it's become clear to me that I'm just repeating myself uselessly, and I'm tired of it. I'll give you guys the last word since you're going to take it anyhow.

I guess we'll find out which of us is right in the sweet by and by. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I can't in good conscience recommend Orthodoxy to a gay person. And that's... really depressing.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 23, 2018, 08:20:22 PM
I felt like I needed to stand up in this thread for the gay people I know. But it's become clear to me that I'm just repeating myself uselessly, and I'm tired of it. I'll give you guys the last word since you're going to take it anyhow.

I guess we'll find out which of us is right in the sweet by and by. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I can't in good conscience recommend Orthodoxy to a gay person. And that's... really depressing.

Exactly. Well said.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 23, 2018, 09:45:48 PM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.

By "force," I mean "threaten with Hell if they don't deny their homosexuality." It's spiritual coercion, if you will.

Though given the rising tide of world reactionarism, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody out there does want to bring back the Code of Justinian. Then again, part of the reason that we can't have peaceful conversations anymore is that both sides assume the other is on the verge of taking over and killing them, so who knows?

After donating some significant headspace to thinking about it, I actually agree with you Volute. I think we need to address the reality of people who are in a long lasting committed relationship based on love with only one another.


If the Orthodox Church did that, whichever local church dared to do it would be canonically isolated.  Of course, canonical isolation seems to be of reduced concern for the EP at this point given the situation in the Ukraine; it is interesting and terrible to ponder what would have a more schismatogenic effect on the Church, this, or the UOC-KP becoming part of the EP, but the prospect of either is chilling, and represents the end of the current period of relative pan Orthodox unity. 

Whichever church did what you proposed would lose its Catholicity and Orthodoxy; it would become a heterodox confession along the lines of the Rennovationist Church of the Soviet Union.  Moscow, Serbia, Antioch, and Georgia, at a minimum, would shun it, and that represents the greater portion of Orthodox Christians, although I also expect the second largest EO church (Romania), Bulgaria, Cyprus, and certainly all four OO churches, would have nothing to do with such a confession. 

Quote


They shouldn't be forced or coerced into celibacy, especially when personal experience tells them they can't be celibate.


“If your right hand causes you to sin, it is better to cut it off...”  Of course, our Lord gave us the sacrament of Reconciliation in order to provide less drastic means of healing and restoring our relationship with our Lord.

However, an unrepentant sinner cannot partake of the Eucharist, and Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition unambiguously define sexual activity between multiple persons as sinful.   Indeed, the explicit condemnation of same-sex activity by St. Paul extends beyond the condemnation of other forms of activity; from St. Paul and the Mosaic Legislation alone we can preclude this activity, and not with recourse to sex outside of marriage; we can rather definitively preclude homosexual activity inside or outside of marriage. 

Yet you did not even set the bar that high, your standard was rather a “committed monogamous relationship.”  This is of course at enormous odds with Scripture and Holy Tradition; within Scripture we see in ancient times divinely sanctioned polygamy, which we then see has been clearly rejected in, for example, the Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, and since that time, the discipline of the early church was to receive people in polygamous marriages contracted outside of the church, but now, I expect that we would decline even this.   The Roman Church indeed adopted the strictest possible protections to ensure monogamy, but the primary concern was the sanctity of marriage, which has always been between one man and one woman.

Indeed, the abuse of the ritual for homosexual reasons likely caused the Church to largely abandon the ancient rite of adelphopoesis, which I think is a great tragedy, as the ability of the Church to bless platonic relationships between effective siblings allowed us to construct and expand family units via four vectors (matrimony, parentage, godparentage, and adelphopoesis), in addition to secondary vectors such as step-parentage).  These allowed for the preservation of a nuturing and protective environment for children in the event of bereavement, an environment which the poisonous form of the homosexual marriage is, owing to the inherent sinfulness of all homosexuality, fundamentally incapable of providing, it being an outrage against both explicit Divine and Natural Law, and a plague upon society.

It should also be noted that your argument could, without any syntactic alteration, be used to justify the admission to the Eucharist of polyamorous homosexuals or the reinstitution of polygamy.  Indeed, a virtually identical syntax is employed by “Jack Mormons” in apologetics defending plural marriage against the formal LDS hierarchy which abolished it under government pressure. 

Quote
They have now chosen to be in a relationship with just one person of the same-sex and are now committed to a sexual relationship with just that one person. You are also right, I think, that this arrangement is now, not only legal, widely accepted as being just the same as heterosexual marriage.



Not by the Church, and never by the Church properly defined.

Quote

The Church does need to address this. Some of these same-sex couples are already professing Orthodox Christians and desire to live as such IN the Church.


They are not professing Orthodox Christians; if they were they would recognize the shamefulness of their conduct and hasten to repent before the priest.  Rather, they have self-excommunicated.   To the extent they think they are Orthodox and think they can do this also, they are, as you yourself said earlier, in prelest.

Quote

They don't want to be seen as second class citizens. When we see it this way, we are starting at the point of addressing their needs and desires. We are starting at the point that they come to us.

Its the wrong point to start at. Why do they want to be Orthodox Christian? Because they believe its the True Faith? Well, the True Faith can't be wrong and the True Faith is that homosexuality is a sin. There is no possibility to bless same-sex "marriage" because that arrangement isn't marriage. Why seek to be a member of a Church that teaches your lifestyle choice is a sin?

Further, no one is forcing them to be Orthodox. It's not the State Religion. They are free to live as the please in this country and pretty much globally. No one forced them to be celibate.

If a homosexual person wants to be Orthodox, they must renounce their all their delusions and sins, just as all of us must do. Gay, straight, rich, poor, arrogant, fornicators, gluttons, adluterers etc. etc. All men must renounce sin. It's the ONLY way into the Kingdom.

This is entirely correct.  Your posts are confusing me; you write a preface which appears to be an endorsement of the error we are rejecting, and then contradict yourself by basically stating the correct Orthodox position.  The question I have, in order that I may understand your post logically, is, which half do you agree with?  The first part of your post, where you apparently capitulate to what we might call the “neo-rennovationists” of our time, or the second part, in which you then refute the first with the Orthodox position? 

It’s not quite rhetorically sound in my view to concede everything to your opponent in the first half of a statement and then refute yourself in the second, as it could be misinterpreted as a strawman, and if it is not a strawman (and I don’t think it is), it makes your post seem self-contradictory and incoherent.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 23, 2018, 09:52:11 PM
I felt like I needed to stand up in this thread for the gay people I know. But it's become clear to me that I'm just repeating myself uselessly, and I'm tired of it. I'll give you guys the last word since you're going to take it anyhow.

I guess we'll find out which of us is right in the sweet by and by. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I can't in good conscience recommend Orthodoxy to a gay person. And that's... really depressing.

What depresses me is that nowhere in the above do we see any attempt to reconcile this, in my opinion, fundamentally misguided, position, with sacred scripture and tradition.  What is more, the numerous statements by myself and others made in good faith, that outline how the Orthodox Church graciously receives sinners of all varieties, and has no spite for any of them, but rather love and empathy, something I think you can’t say about fundamentalist Protestant churches in the Calvinist and Baptist substrate, have been persistantly ignored or trod upon.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 23, 2018, 10:04:24 PM
Quote
This is entirely correct.  Your posts are confusing me; you write a preface which appears to be an endorsement of the error we are rejecting, and then contradict yourself by basically stating the correct Orthodox position.  The question I have, in order that I may understand your post logically, is, which half do you agree with?  The first part of your post, where you apparently capitulate to what we might call the “neo-rennovationists” of our time, or the second part, in which you then refute the first with the Orthodox position? 

It’s not quite rhetorically sound in my view to concede everything to your opponent in the first half of a statement and then refute yourself in the second, as it could be misinterpreted as a strawman, and if it is not a strawman (and I don’t think it is), it makes your post seem self-contradictory and incoherent.

I understand how that could be confusing. That's not my intent. I want to clarify for sure. As an Orthodox Priest (and having been blessed by being guided by the most excellent Fr. Alexander Atty, of blessed memory, who was my confessor) I uphold the teachings of our Church. To the point: the second part expresses my belief, which will always (by my effort) conform to the One True Faith, found only in the Holy Orthodox Church.


The only point of my first paragraph what to establish word for word exactly what volute, biro, and many others claim is the perspective of those who want to change the Church and Her teachings. I wanted to clearly restate what they said, then offer a simple refutation in the same post. Sorry for any confusion!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpha60 on June 23, 2018, 10:05:27 PM
Quote
This is entirely correct.  Your posts are confusing me; you write a preface which appears to be an endorsement of the error we are rejecting, and then contradict yourself by basically stating the correct Orthodox position.  The question I have, in order that I may understand your post logically, is, which half do you agree with?  The first part of your post, where you apparently capitulate to what we might call the “neo-rennovationists” of our time, or the second part, in which you then refute the first with the Orthodox position? 

It’s not quite rhetorically sound in my view to concede everything to your opponent in the first half of a statement and then refute yourself in the second, as it could be misinterpreted as a strawman, and if it is not a strawman (and I don’t think it is), it makes your post seem self-contradictory and incoherent.

I understand how that could be confusing. That's not my intent. I want to clarify for sure. As an Orthodox Priest (and having been blessed by being guided by the most excellent Fr. Alexander Atty, of blessed memory, who was my confessor) I uphold the teachings of our Church. To the point: the second part expresses my belief, which will always (by my effort) conform to the One True Faith, found only in the Holy Orthodox Church.


The only point of my first paragraph what to establish word for word exactly what volute, biro, and many others claim is the perspective of those who want to change the Church and Her teachings. I wanted to clearly restate what they said, then offer a simple refutation in the same post. Sorry for any confusion!

Ah, very good Father, I understand what you were trying to do. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Fr. Alexis on June 23, 2018, 10:08:20 PM
Quote
What depresses me is that nowhere in the above do we see any attempt to reconcile this, in my opinion, fundamentally misguided, position, with sacred scripture and tradition.  What is more, the numerous statements by myself and others made in good faith, that outline how the Orthodox Church graciously receives sinners of all varieties, and has no spite for any of them, but rather love and empathy, something I think you can’t say about fundamentalist Protestant churches in the Calvinist and Baptist substrate, have been persistantly ignored or trod upon.

Very true and sad. Plus, there are plenty of people who struggle faithfully against homosexual passions. They have spoken and written about how cruel it is that people embraced that destructive, sinful lifestyle, how damaging it was that people encouraged it. They have expressed their gratitude for the Church and Christian teaching for bringing them out of that way of life. Those people are being ignored, invalidated, and insulted. Very sad!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 23, 2018, 11:59:07 PM
After donating some significant headspace to thinking about it, I actually agree with you Volute. I think we need to address the reality of people who are in a long lasting committed relationship based on love with only one another. They shouldn't be forced or coerced into celibacy, especially when personal experience tells them they can't be celibate. They have now chosen to be in a relationship with just one person of the same-sex and are now committed to a sexual relationship with just that one person. You are also right, I think, that this arrangement is now, not only legal, widely accepted as being just the same as heterosexual marriage.

The Church does need to address this. Some of these same-sex couples are already professing Orthodox Christians and desire to live as such IN the Church. They don't want to be seen as second class citizens. When we see it this way, we are starting at the point of addressing their needs and desires. We are starting at the point that they come to us.

Tongue only partly in cheek, I don't understand all the hysteria on the part of the Church. Given enough time, 'people who are in a long lasting committed relationship based on love with only one another' are going to stop having sex, if not from boredom at least due to age. I believe this is as true of homosexual couples as it is of heterosexuals. One might almost say it's part of God's plan.  :P
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Rubricnigel on June 27, 2018, 11:34:29 AM
What I do not understand is that the Church is not forcing anything at least in America. Secular law has determined inherent rights to marriage etc to be implicit within it’s code. The Church has the right to reject this within itself only; no one is forced to be in the church. Secular law determined that abortion was an implicit right within it. Again, the Church rejects this within itself but cannot enforce anything outside of it.

The Church preaches a message that includes a lifestyle that rejects abortion and homosexuality. Thankfully we are not under the code of Justinian but the Church cannot make accommodations to receive the Eucharist on matters that would undermine what it stands for.

By "force," I mean "threaten with Hell if they don't deny their homosexuality." It's spiritual coercion, if you will.

Though given the rising tide of world reactionarism, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody out there does want to bring back the Code of Justinian. Then again, part of the reason that we can't have peaceful conversations anymore is that both sides assume the other is on the verge of taking over and killing them, so who knows?

After donating some significant headspace to thinking about it, I actually agree with you Volute. I think we need to address the reality of people who are in a long lasting committed relationship based on love with only one another. They shouldn't be forced or coerced into celibacy, especially when personal experience tells them they can't be celibate. They have now chosen to be in a relationship with just one person of the same-sex and are now committed to a sexual relationship with just that one person. You are also right, I think, that this arrangement is now, not only legal, widely accepted as being just the same as heterosexual marriage.

The Church does need to address this. Some of these same-sex couples are already professing Orthodox Christians and desire to live as such IN the Church. They don't want to be seen as second class citizens. When we see it this way, we are starting at the point of addressing their needs and desires. We are starting at the point that they come to us.

Its the wrong point to start at. Why do they want to be Orthodox Christian? Because they believe its the True Faith? Well, the True Faith can't be wrong and the True Faith is that homosexuality is a sin. There is no possibility to bless same-sex "marriage" because that arrangement isn't marriage. Why seek to be a member of a Church that teaches your lifestyle choice is a sin?

Further, no one is forcing them to be Orthodox. It's not the State Religion. They are free to live as the please in this country and pretty much globally. No one forced them to be celibate.

If a homosexual person wants to be Orthodox, they must renounce their all their delusions and sins, just as all of us must do. Gay, straight, rich, poor, arrogant, fornicators, gluttons, adluterers etc. etc. All men must renounce sin. It's the ONLY way into the Kingdom.

Well said.
God bless
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 27, 2018, 03:52:34 PM
One may make a decision to have sex, but one doesn't get to choose what orientation one is.

Are you absolutely sure about that?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: IreneOlinyk on June 27, 2018, 06:20:35 PM
One may make a decision to have sex, but one doesn't get to choose what orientation one is.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Well you raise a good questiion.  We can say that we are absolutely sure what the
Orthodox Church says: that sexual orientation is a choice.

But no one has discussed what medical science says or if medical science has a definitive statement at present.  Is further research needed by medical science?

 I certainly admit that I do not know.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jakoblaj on June 27, 2018, 06:33:00 PM
One may make a decision to have sex, but one doesn't get to choose what orientation one is.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Well you raise a good questiion.  We can say that we are absolutely sure what the
Orthodox Church says: that sexual orientation is a choice.


Out of curiosity, could you point me to the sources that show that the Church says that sexual orientation is a choice? 

If I had known if was a choice I could have saved myself SO turmoil, humiliation, and pain. /s
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: IreneOlinyk on June 27, 2018, 08:35:07 PM
Thank you for porting out my mistake:
This what I meant to write: We can say that we are absolutely sure what the
Orthodox Church says: that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Unfortunately, for the past two hours I have been trying to modyfy my post without success.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Jakoblaj on June 27, 2018, 08:55:50 PM
Thank you for clarifying. :)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: biro on June 27, 2018, 09:15:31 PM
Sexual acts are by choice.

Sexual orientation is not, as St. Seraphim could tell you.

I can repeat it as much as Scam wants, but I'm sure it won't sink in.

In any event, even if it were, sex between consenting adults is legal in the United States, except for the ban on prostitution in all states except Nevada. So, gay people have the legal right to make that choice.

Sorry you don't like the law around these parts.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 27, 2018, 09:42:02 PM
Which St. Seraphim?
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 27, 2018, 11:10:29 PM
Here's a little test to help you determine whether your own sexual orientation is a choice or not. Find before and after pictures of people who have undergone a successful sex change/gender transition. This is not hard to do on the internet. Now look at the pictures and ask yourself whether you would honestly rather spend the night with the male or the female version of the people in the pictures.  8)
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 27, 2018, 11:39:18 PM
Sexual acts are by choice.

I wonder if it’s really that simple...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Opus118 on June 28, 2018, 12:05:39 AM
Sexual acts are by choice.

I wonder if it’s really that simple...
It is, it depends on how much you drink beforehand.  I can possibly answer other questions of wonderment if it falls into 1930s-1940s movie memes.

Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Alpo on June 28, 2018, 11:30:23 AM
Here's a little test to help you determine whether your own sexual orientation is a choice or not. Find before and after pictures of people who have undergone a successful sex change/gender transition. This is not hard to do on the internet. Now look at the pictures and ask yourself whether you would honestly rather spend the night with the male or the female version of the people in the pictures.  8)

I've seen fairly attractive transgenders. I assume they've been attractive also before their transition.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: augustin717 on June 28, 2018, 12:26:17 PM
Which St. Seraphim?
The Platinite
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: hecma925 on June 28, 2018, 01:21:49 PM
Which St. Seraphim?
The Platinite

Ah lol
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 28, 2018, 01:31:50 PM
Sexual acts are by choice.

I wonder if it’s really that simple...
It is, it depends on how much you drink beforehand.  I can possibly answer other questions of wonderment if it falls into 1930s-1940s movie memes.

No, friend, I was being serious.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Ainnir on June 29, 2018, 08:48:55 AM
Sexual acts are by choice.

I wonder if it’s really that simple...
It is, it depends on how much you drink beforehand.  I can possibly answer other questions of wonderment if it falls into 1930s-1940s movie memes.

No, friend, I was being serious.
At some point (unless we want to get really existential), it has to be that simple.  In terms of curtailing and directing, at the very least.  But simple =/= easy.  I think a lot of unnecessary frustration comes from thinking they're the same. And I do think this subject could benefit from a more existential treatment, instead of narrowing the definition of sexuality down to the pinpoint of attraction and copulation.  But our secular social sphere can't really do that, because then it would have to start asking questions it doesn't want to answer...
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Opus118 on June 29, 2018, 10:52:53 AM
Sexual acts are by choice.

I wonder if it’s really that simple...
It is, it depends on how much you drink beforehand.  I can possibly answer other questions of wonderment if it falls into 1930s-1940s movie memes.

No, friend, I was being serious.
OK. I will have to think about this some more, but first, I do think there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals emotionally and spiritually. I do not know what sexual attraction is. I do understand what physical attraction is and it includes the person's mannerisms and the sound of their voice.

There are plenty of examples of heterosexuals in movies and 19th-20th century novels that match the situation with now with homosexuals that are worth exploring. Often the outcomes are sinful: drinking yourself to a stupor day in day out; suicide; murder (really popular fictitious outcome); rape; infidelity (also common); divorce; abandonment. But there are other outcomes that cannot be described in a simple word.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 29, 2018, 03:56:03 PM


I can repeat it as much as Scam wants, but I'm sure it won't sink in.


Just because you keep repeating it does not make it correct.  Present me with incontrovertible proof that sexual orientation is something that you are born or programmed with which cannot be undone.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: scamandrius on June 29, 2018, 03:59:00 PM
Here's a little test to help you determine whether your own sexual orientation is a choice or not. Find before and after pictures of people who have undergone a successful sex change/gender transition. This is not hard to do on the internet. Now look at the pictures and ask yourself whether you would honestly rather spend the night with the male or the female version of the people in the pictures.  8)

Wow.  This is absolutely brilliant. 
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: FinnJames on June 29, 2018, 04:18:53 PM


I can repeat it as much as Scam wants, but I'm sure it won't sink in.


Just because you keep repeating it does not make it correct.  Present me with incontrovertible proof that sexual orientation is something that you are born or programmed with which cannot be undone.

Somehow I don't think we're going to get very far with this because there is nothing 'you were born or programmed with which cannot be undone' in these days of sex-change operations/gender reassignment surgery and the like. But--

perhaps this analogy will be helpful: It's pretty widely agreed by both scientists and laypeople  that a certain percentage of infants favour one hand over the other from birth. (This appears to be the case in other mammals as well, if what I've read about dogs is correct.) But we all know that it is possible to 'undo' this either by severely punishing the (left-handed) child (as used to be done) or through the loss of the use of the favoured hand from a stroke or amputation. Of course using the 'wrong' hand isn't (as far as I know) considered a sin in the bible or by the Church Fathers, so the Church isn't worried about left-handers to the point of denying them communion if they don't repent.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Agabus on June 29, 2018, 05:36:52 PM
I would never commune a left-handed dog.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: Orthodox_Slav on June 29, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
I would never commune a left-handed dog.

never would I comrade!
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriage
Post by: RaphaCam on July 01, 2018, 02:43:39 AM
I would never commune a left-handed dog.
I always ask if there isn't a table for normal people when there are only those for the left-handed left. Usually only the left-handed laugh at that.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriag
Post by: Alpha60 on July 01, 2018, 07:58:57 AM
Here's a little test to help you determine whether your own sexual orientation is a choice or not. Find before and after pictures of people who have undergone a successful sex change/gender transition. This is not hard to do on the internet. Now look at the pictures and ask yourself whether you would honestly rather spend the night with the male or the female version of the people in the pictures.  8)

I don’t think this is helpful at all, because my heart is broken by the appearance of self-mutillated people, whether it is people who have covered themselves with tatoos, or piercings, or some of the very elaborate forms of self mutilation in some tribal societies, or people who had perfectly healthy, functional bodies who resorted to destructive surgery because they were not content with that which God gave them.  The only thing more sad to see than someone who has self mutilated are those who have been involuntarily mutilated (women who are victims of FGM, or footbinding, or the tragic historic cases of men involuntarily castrated as boys, and also, the particularly unpleasant case of a tribal culture in, if memory serves, Southeast Asia or Indonesia, who would elongate the necks of their girls by locking metal rings around them, which once installed, cannot safely be removed past a certain point).  The tragedy of the involuntarily mutilated has the effect of making those who self-mutilate an even more depressing sight to behold, for these are individuals who have had extreme alterations made to their human body without justification.

On this point we must stress that the human body, which will be resurrected, is integral to the person; Orthodoxy knows of no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body (a common delusion in Indonesia); such a delusion is a delusion precisely because we reject a Gnostic or Docetic worldview, and surgical alterations that destroy a healthy reproductive physiology in order to imitate in appearance the physiology of another gender, seem to be destructive acts, violations of the human body on a par with the barbaric practice of cremation.  There are possible exceptions concerning persons born with actual deformities of the reproductive system, the so called “intersexed,” which I shall address.

Before that, however, I should like you to consider that Canon I of the Council of Nicea precludes anyone who has by their own choice been castrated from taking on Holy Orders, and while at the time this primarily had in mind male clergy who were self-castrating as a twisted form of asceticism, I think we can interpret this canon as applying to anyone who has any kind of sex-change surgery, regardless of gender, as completely disqualified, particularly in the majority of cases where this kind of radical surgery destroys reproductive function.

I can endorse gender-assignment surgery only in the case of “intersexed” individuals, that is to say, persons born with ambiguous genitalia or hermaphroditism.  Tragically, in those cases, there is usually no reproductive function (also in some men who have an extra X chromosome, so their sex chromosomes are XXY instead of XY); this sexual assignment surgery should, if there is or likely will be reproductive functionality, seek to align the person to their prospective reproductive capability, physiologically, or in other cases, follow a de minimis approach.  If there are two options of equal viability, if the surgery can be delayed until after puberty, this seems to me desirable, in that in such a case the victim of the birth defect may have formed a psychological association with a particular gender, and where this exists in the absence of any other clear guide as to which gender to surgically assign the person to, this association would provide such guidance.  Individuals treated for reproductive system birth defects in this manner I think could be married by the Church.   However, an individual who chose to remain “intersexed” and declined assignment surgery without a valid medical reason (such as other birth defects or hereditary diseases, or other conditions, which would preclude assignment surgery) I think would be ineligible for holy matrimony.

Likewise, needless to say, the Church cannot crown in wedlock individuals who were born with healthy reproductive organs, but who destroyed that functionality due to a gravely destructive passion motivating them to seek to posess a gender different from that which God gave them.
Title: Re: Met. Kallistos Ware on Homosexual Marriag
Post by: Agabus on July 02, 2018, 04:00:13 PM
However, an individual who chose to remain “intersexed” and declined assignment surgery without a valid medical reason (such as other birth defects or hereditary diseases, or other conditions, which would preclude assignment surgery) I think would be ineligible for holy matrimony.

So you're saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to marry because they accepted the body God gave them?