OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 09:18:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did the Church sanction gay marriage?  (Read 25384 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #135 on: September 10, 2009, 03:50:19 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

I stand by those words of Fr. Seraphim. This Hell is being driven by one’s hormones and knowing that to deny them is “unhealthy.” Hell is being driven by one’s desires and fantasies and knowing that to deny them is to deny the only joy there is, the joy that defines your whole being.

Hell is a fine San Francisco morning standing trapped in your bedroom while an orgy takes place in the hallway outside. Hell is a foggy San Francisco afternoon standing in a room full of men involved in various actions with each other—and somewhere a voice tells you it’s all wrong, but you don’t know what to do. Hell is a balmy San Francisco evening on a back porch listening to ten homosexual men in the middle of the most liberal Episcopal diocese in the country insist that all churches are homophobic and evil.

Hell is being told in a Sunday sermon that Jesus died in first-century Judea, that Jesus isn’t alive, that Jesus isn’t coming back, and that he would want you to “follow your bliss” to find the will of God in your life—all of this when you know now that your “bliss” makes you more depressed every time you indulge in it. Hell is knowing that the same biblical scholarship that allows for your own sexual antics also allows for clergy who deny the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.

Hell is a “Pride Parade” where no one looks at you, where no one returns your compliments, where no one bothers to notice you—on a day when egos are supposed to be full and fluffy, Hell is having one’s ego bashed. Hell is knowing that at this point, someone reading this essay will say, “Oh, he’s ugly and bitter, that’s all.”

Hell is watching your friends die for the sake of their own freedom to damn themselves—and hearing them cry, “I didn’t do anything to deserve this . . . God is hateful.”

Hell is knowing that there is the slightest possibility that the Jesus Seminar folks and other “new theologians” are wrong and that 2,000 years of orthodox Christians are right: that homosexual sex might be evil. Hell is standing next to those who end a conversation about this question by saying, “Oh, shut up.” Hell is being told that all the gospel is wrong—that two millennia of your brothers and sisters in the faith were wrong—and that Jesus loves you just as you are and does not ask you to change, that modern Christianity will just throw out everything that disagrees with this picture of Jesus. Hell is being told that this nihilism and denial of any and all truth is exactly what church is supposed to be—liberating us from the dark past of sin and law and guilt.

Hell is finding out that no one really wants “a relationship” no matter how much they want it blessed or accepted; rather, that they want easier sex, the right to demand acceptance from their neighbors, and the ability to collect a partner’s insurance payments. Hell is knowing that they would also like the blessed relationship to be open, not monogamous, with a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and weekends free to play around. And don’t judge us, please.

Source: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-04-015-v

This guy agrees with Father Serpahim Rose conserning a homosexual life style : "I was in Hell. I know what Hell is."

Papist, I understand you consider homosexual acts to be sinful, even evil. But in this article you quote, you mix together what sound like a whole set of sexual and social sins, or evils, or mistakes, and imply that all are inherently part of the same thing: homosexuality.

I find this deeply sad. I know of a heterosexual, married couple who have an 'open' relationship. No, in my view, it's not healthy. But neither does homosexuality open the door to such things. What your article describes sounds indeed like hell. But it is not representative of homosexual experience. Do you assume that homosexuals are somehow more depraved, more weak, than any other person who has extramarital sex?
Liz, I'm going to have to say that the vast majority of homosexual men that I have encountered do or have participated in the

 things described above. I dont think its because they are intrinisically more evil than everyone else. I just think it happens because the homosexual act is such an incredible overturning of the natural order. See Romans Chapter 1

I guess we just move in different circles. I've never been remotely interested in casual sex, but you could easily argue that God led me to my very Orthodox partner to protect me  Smiley

If we sit around long enough, we'll all see what happens with the Church anyway.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #136 on: September 10, 2009, 03:50:45 PM »

Agreed. This being so, I don't think the argument about the design of our bodies is relevant.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - just because pleasure isn't part of the equation regarding sex doesn't mean the design of the body isn't relevant.  Pleasure can be gained through hetero- and homo-sexual sex, and through masturbation.  But that doesn't justify any of those acts - all are considered un-natural, with only the first (heterosexual sex) having the possibility of being good, when done in marriage and in love and respect for the other person (yes, even in heterosexual marriage there can be bad, abusive, sinful, non-loving sex).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: September 10, 2009, 03:51:21 PM »

Why is it hard to reconcile the following non-contradictory points?
  • Homosexuals are people, children of God, and are to be treated as such
  • Homosexual sex should not be treated worse than adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.
  • Re: Homosexual Sex
  • Just because it's not worse doesn't mean it's ok.
  • The natural state of attraction does not necessitate that the sexual act is natural or good
  • Because it's not natural, and because it hasn't been revealed to us to be natural, it hasn't been included in the privileges of or justification for marriage.
  • Because it's not included in the privileges of marriage, then it is by nature an extra-marital act.
  • Don't spend so much ink condemning homosexuals that you condemn yourself for your own sins.
  • Don't insinuate that just because heterosexuals have sex outside marriage, that homosexuals should too - neither group should.

 I guess the most important thing is that Orthodox people who are attracted to the opposite sex should feel that, whatever the teaching of the Church,
Of course. I would certainly hope that any Christian Church would welcome anyone. That being said, I would not use the arguements provide above to convince a person living a homosexual life style to change. I think it would just push them away. My interactions with such a person would be much more gentle.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #138 on: September 10, 2009, 03:52:57 PM »

I guess the most important thing is that Orthodox people who are attracted to the opposite sex should feel that, whatever the teaching of the Church, the Church welcomes them.

Right - the Church is the hospital for sinners, and all are invited.  We just hope that all the patients (myself included) follow their doctor's orders, if they want to become healthy.

Have mercy on me, a sinner.

May He have mercy on us all!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #139 on: September 10, 2009, 03:53:47 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

I stand by those words of Fr. Seraphim. This Hell is being driven by one’s hormones and knowing that to deny them is “unhealthy.” Hell is being driven by one’s desires and fantasies and knowing that to deny them is to deny the only joy there is, the joy that defines your whole being.

Hell is a fine San Francisco morning standing trapped in your bedroom while an orgy takes place in the hallway outside. Hell is a foggy San Francisco afternoon standing in a room full of men involved in various actions with each other—and somewhere a voice tells you it’s all wrong, but you don’t know what to do. Hell is a balmy San Francisco evening on a back porch listening to ten homosexual men in the middle of the most liberal Episcopal diocese in the country insist that all churches are homophobic and evil.

Hell is being told in a Sunday sermon that Jesus died in first-century Judea, that Jesus isn’t alive, that Jesus isn’t coming back, and that he would want you to “follow your bliss” to find the will of God in your life—all of this when you know now that your “bliss” makes you more depressed every time you indulge in it. Hell is knowing that the same biblical scholarship that allows for your own sexual antics also allows for clergy who deny the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.

Hell is a “Pride Parade” where no one looks at you, where no one returns your compliments, where no one bothers to notice you—on a day when egos are supposed to be full and fluffy, Hell is having one’s ego bashed. Hell is knowing that at this point, someone reading this essay will say, “Oh, he’s ugly and bitter, that’s all.”

Hell is watching your friends die for the sake of their own freedom to damn themselves—and hearing them cry, “I didn’t do anything to deserve this . . . God is hateful.”

Hell is knowing that there is the slightest possibility that the Jesus Seminar folks and other “new theologians” are wrong and that 2,000 years of orthodox Christians are right: that homosexual sex might be evil. Hell is standing next to those who end a conversation about this question by saying, “Oh, shut up.” Hell is being told that all the gospel is wrong—that two millennia of your brothers and sisters in the faith were wrong—and that Jesus loves you just as you are and does not ask you to change, that modern Christianity will just throw out everything that disagrees with this picture of Jesus. Hell is being told that this nihilism and denial of any and all truth is exactly what church is supposed to be—liberating us from the dark past of sin and law and guilt.

Hell is finding out that no one really wants “a relationship” no matter how much they want it blessed or accepted; rather, that they want easier sex, the right to demand acceptance from their neighbors, and the ability to collect a partner’s insurance payments. Hell is knowing that they would also like the blessed relationship to be open, not monogamous, with a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and weekends free to play around. And don’t judge us, please.

Source: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-04-015-v

This guy agrees with Father Serpahim Rose conserning a homosexual life style : "I was in Hell. I know what Hell is."

Papist, I understand you consider homosexual acts to be sinful, even evil. But in this article you quote, you mix together what sound like a whole set of sexual and social sins, or evils, or mistakes, and imply that all are inherently part of the same thing: homosexuality.

I find this deeply sad. I know of a heterosexual, married couple who have an 'open' relationship. No, in my view, it's not healthy. But neither does homosexuality open the door to such things. What your article describes sounds indeed like hell. But it is not representative of homosexual experience. Do you assume that homosexuals are somehow more depraved, more weak, than any other person who has extramarital sex?
Liz, I'm going to have to say that the vast majority of homosexual men that I have encountered do or have participated in the

 things described above. I dont think its because they are intrinisically more evil than everyone else. I just think it happens because the homosexual act is such an incredible overturning of the natural order. See Romans Chapter 1

I guess we just move in different circles. I've never been remotely interested in casual sex, but you could easily argue that God led me to my very Orthodox partner to protect me  Smiley

If we sit around long enough, we'll all see what happens with the Church anyway.
Liz if you are homosexual, I have to apologize if I am coming off as offensive. I am only providind what I consider a very rational approach to homosexuality. In dealing with a person who actually deals with the matter on a day to day basis, I would be more pastoral. I am unaware of your situation and I apologize if my clinical tone has been hurtful to you.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #140 on: September 10, 2009, 04:06:09 PM »

Why is it hard to reconcile the following non-contradictory points?
  • Homosexuals are people, children of God, and are to be treated as such
  • Homosexual sex should not be treated worse than adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.
  • Re: Homosexual Sex
  • Just because it's not worse doesn't mean it's ok.
  • The natural state of attraction does not necessitate that the sexual act is natural or good
  • Because it's not natural, and because it hasn't been revealed to us to be natural, it hasn't been included in the privileges of or justification for marriage.
  • Because it's not included in the privileges of marriage, then it is by nature an extra-marital act.
  • Don't spend so much ink condemning homosexuals that you condemn yourself for your own sins.
  • Don't insinuate that just because heterosexuals have sex outside marriage, that homosexuals should too - neither group should.

 I guess the most important thing is that Orthodox people who are attracted to the opposite sex should feel that, whatever the teaching of the Church,
Of course. I would certainly hope that any Christian Church would welcome anyone. That being said, I would not use the arguements provide above to convince a person living a homosexual life style to change. I think it would just push them away. My interactions with such a person would be much more gentle.

Ok. I may be treading on shaky ground here, so please forgive me. But how would you know you were speaking to someone 'living a homosexual lifestyle'? Admittedly some people wear their hearts on their sleeves, but many don't. I'd venture to say that the majority of those who have any likelihood of changing, are those who are relatively 'quiet'. What happens when someone stumbles across this thread and feels rejected by what you've said here? It's been pointed out that this is the biggest English-speaking Orthodox forum online, so it's not exactly unlikely you know.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #141 on: September 10, 2009, 04:29:15 PM »

Why is it hard to reconcile the following non-contradictory points?
  • Homosexuals are people, children of God, and are to be treated as such
  • Homosexual sex should not be treated worse than adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.
  • Re: Homosexual Sex
  • Just because it's not worse doesn't mean it's ok.
  • The natural state of attraction does not necessitate that the sexual act is natural or good
  • Because it's not natural, and because it hasn't been revealed to us to be natural, it hasn't been included in the privileges of or justification for marriage.
  • Because it's not included in the privileges of marriage, then it is by nature an extra-marital act.
  • Don't spend so much ink condemning homosexuals that you condemn yourself for your own sins.
  • Don't insinuate that just because heterosexuals have sex outside marriage, that homosexuals should too - neither group should.

 I guess the most important thing is that Orthodox people who are attracted to the opposite sex should feel that, whatever the teaching of the Church,
Of course. I would certainly hope that any Christian Church would welcome anyone. That being said, I would not use the arguements provide above to convince a person living a homosexual life style to change. I think it would just push them away. My interactions with such a person would be much more gentle.

Ok. I may be treading on shaky ground here, so please forgive me. But how would you know you were speaking to someone 'living a homosexual lifestyle'? Admittedly some people wear their hearts on their sleeves, but many don't. I'd venture to say that the majority of those who have any likelihood of changing, are those who are relatively 'quiet'. What happens when someone stumbles across this thread and feels rejected by what you've said here? It's been pointed out that this is the biggest English-speaking Orthodox forum online, so it's not exactly unlikely you know.
True. But then if I were to go to that extreme I could never make the arguement that I believe some in our society still need to hear.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #142 on: September 10, 2009, 04:54:34 PM »

Why is it hard to reconcile the following non-contradictory points?
  • Homosexuals are people, children of God, and are to be treated as such
  • Homosexual sex should not be treated worse than adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.

Why not better, if it is in a committed, lifelong union between two men or two women who love each other?

  • Because it's not natural, and because it hasn't been revealed to us to be natural, it hasn't been included in the privileges of or justification for marriage.

But that's the whole point - not revealed... It hasn't been revealed to us that airplanes can fly...
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 04:55:45 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #143 on: September 10, 2009, 05:01:46 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

I stand by those words of Fr. Seraphim. This Hell is being driven by one’s hormones and knowing that to deny them is “unhealthy.” Hell is being driven by one’s desires and fantasies and knowing that to deny them is to deny the only joy there is, the joy that defines your whole being.

Hell is a fine San Francisco morning standing trapped in your bedroom while an orgy takes place in the hallway outside. Hell is a foggy San Francisco afternoon standing in a room full of men involved in various actions with each other—and somewhere a voice tells you it’s all wrong, but you don’t know what to do. Hell is a balmy San Francisco evening on a back porch listening to ten homosexual men in the middle of the most liberal Episcopal diocese in the country insist that all churches are homophobic and evil.

Hell is being told in a Sunday sermon that Jesus died in first-century Judea, that Jesus isn’t alive, that Jesus isn’t coming back, and that he would want you to “follow your bliss” to find the will of God in your life—all of this when you know now that your “bliss” makes you more depressed every time you indulge in it. Hell is knowing that the same biblical scholarship that allows for your own sexual antics also allows for clergy who deny the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.

Hell is a “Pride Parade” where no one looks at you, where no one returns your compliments, where no one bothers to notice you—on a day when egos are supposed to be full and fluffy, Hell is having one’s ego bashed. Hell is knowing that at this point, someone reading this essay will say, “Oh, he’s ugly and bitter, that’s all.”

Hell is watching your friends die for the sake of their own freedom to damn themselves—and hearing them cry, “I didn’t do anything to deserve this . . . God is hateful.”

Hell is knowing that there is the slightest possibility that the Jesus Seminar folks and other “new theologians” are wrong and that 2,000 years of orthodox Christians are right: that homosexual sex might be evil. Hell is standing next to those who end a conversation about this question by saying, “Oh, shut up.” Hell is being told that all the gospel is wrong—that two millennia of your brothers and sisters in the faith were wrong—and that Jesus loves you just as you are and does not ask you to change, that modern Christianity will just throw out everything that disagrees with this picture of Jesus. Hell is being told that this nihilism and denial of any and all truth is exactly what church is supposed to be—liberating us from the dark past of sin and law and guilt.

Hell is finding out that no one really wants “a relationship” no matter how much they want it blessed or accepted; rather, that they want easier sex, the right to demand acceptance from their neighbors, and the ability to collect a partner’s insurance payments. Hell is knowing that they would also like the blessed relationship to be open, not monogamous, with a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and weekends free to play around. And don’t judge us, please.

Source: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-04-015-v

This guy agrees with Father Serpahim Rose conserning a homosexual life style : "I was in Hell. I know what Hell is."

Papist, I understand you consider homosexual acts to be sinful, even evil. But in this article you quote, you mix together what sound like a whole set of sexual and social sins, or evils, or mistakes, and imply that all are inherently part of the same thing: homosexuality.

I find this deeply sad. I know of a heterosexual, married couple who have an 'open' relationship. No, in my view, it's not healthy. But neither does homosexuality open the door to such things. What your article describes sounds indeed like hell. But it is not representative of homosexual experience. Do you assume that homosexuals are somehow more depraved, more weak, than any other person who has extramarital sex?
Liz, I'm going to have to say that the vast majority of homosexual men that I have encountered do or have participated in the

 things described above. I dont think its because they are intrinisically more evil than everyone else. I just think it happens because the homosexual act is such an incredible overturning of the natural order. See Romans Chapter 1

I guess we just move in different circles. I've never been remotely interested in casual sex, but you could easily argue that God led me to my very Orthodox partner to protect me  Smiley

If we sit around long enough, we'll all see what happens with the Church anyway.
Liz if you are homosexual, I have to apologize if I am coming off as offensive. I am only providind what I consider a very rational approach to homosexuality. In dealing with a person who actually deals with the matter on a day to day basis, I would be more pastoral. I am unaware of your situation and I apologize if my clinical tone has been hurtful to you.


No need to apologize at all. I enjoy these discussions, and I didn't think your tone was too clinical at all. Logical, rational discussion is always good, whether or not we come to agreement.

As it happens, homosexuality is not condemned by my Church, so I'm not arguing on my own behalf. I merely worry about how others might feel turned away from God, which would be sad.

However, I live in a context where there are many homosexual couples, and I didn't recognize your description of them. I have a fair amount of first-hand experience as well. If I were homosexual, I would (being Anglican) likely be equally concerned about your viewpoint, and about my Church's mistakes in this area, as I am now. But I wouldn't be living with a male partner!

Liz.

Edit: Sorry, just realized my posts are out of sync for some reason - I clicked to post the previous message a lot longer ago than it seems to have registered, in which time an answer was written. Apologies if there's confusion.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 05:03:36 PM by Liz » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #144 on: September 10, 2009, 05:02:40 PM »

But that's the whole point - not revealed... It hasn't been revealed to us that airplanes can fly...

Really?  You're going to bring an absurd and weak argument to the table here?  I shouldn't be surprised - you've already stated that you don't think all homosexuals can do what other humans can do in controlling their most basic drives.  Airplanes flying is a morally neutral activity - one that neither helps nor hurts our salvation, but is rather a tool which can be used either for good (missionary work) or evil (9/11).  Sex is an activity which is not morally neutral (and never has been), and thus revelation - through science, saints, and everything in between - is important.  Sex transcends the physical aspects associated with it, and since it is a more pervasive act in society it thus must be taken even more seriously than aeronautical engineering.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #145 on: September 10, 2009, 05:05:30 PM »

But that's the whole point - not revealed... It hasn't been revealed to us that airplanes can fly...

Really?  You're going to bring an absurd and weak argument to the table here?  I shouldn't be surprised - you've already stated that you don't think all homosexuals can do what other humans can do in controlling their most basic drives.  Airplanes flying is a morally neutral activity - one that neither helps nor hurts our salvation, but is rather a tool which can be used either for good (missionary work) or evil (9/11).  Sex is an activity which is not morally neutral (and never has been), and thus revelation - through science, saints, and everything in between - is important.  Sex transcends the physical aspects associated with it, and since it is a more pervasive act in society it thus must be taken even more seriously than aeronautical engineering.

Have to agree with Cleveland.

Let us consider: many aspects of religion are not amenable to scientific proof. Our attitudes may change as science moves on, but if we make morality subordinate to science, in a religion where Our Lord died, was buried, and rose again, we're likely to struggle!
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #146 on: September 10, 2009, 05:56:52 PM »

But that's the whole point - not revealed... It hasn't been revealed to us that airplanes can fly...

Really?  You're going to bring an absurd and weak argument to the table here?  I shouldn't be surprised - you've already stated that you don't think all homosexuals can do what other humans can do in controlling their most basic drives.

Not quite so. I said that some homosexuals are called for celibacy, while others aren't. Those who are, can become monastics or just live solitary lives and be happy. Those who are not, if they are believing and obedient chidren of our Church, have two choices: suppress their sexual urges because they are "unnatural" (just like airplanes that fly, contrary to "nature" of heavy objects that have to fall down...Smiley), or act contrary to the teachings of the Church. I certainly do not advoccate the latter. But I do not see why the Church cannot modify Her teaching on the "un-naturaleness" of each and every homosexual sexual act, even if the latter is between the two loving men or the two loving women who are committed to each other for life.

Airplanes flying is a morally neutral activity - one that neither helps nor hurts our salvation, but is rather a tool which can be used either for good (missionary work) or evil (9/11).  Sex is an activity which is not morally neutral (and never has been), and thus revelation - through science, saints, and everything in between - is important.  Sex transcends the physical aspects associated with it, and since it is a more pervasive act in society it thus must be taken even more seriously than aeronautical engineering.

I agree! But the same can be said about homosexual sex. If it happens between two men who are using each other to satisfy their lust (like it certainly was the case with some married men with children in those Hellenistic households St. Paul was referring to), then it is evil. Even more so if a man uses his slave for that purpose (as it also, most definitely, was the case in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus and other cities St. Paul traveled to in the 1st century A.D.). But when it happens between two individuals of the same sex who cannot live without each other and love each other exactly like any two really loving heterosexual spouses love each other - is it evil then?
Logged

Love never fails.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #147 on: September 10, 2009, 06:12:25 PM »

But when it happens between two individuals of the same sex who cannot live without each other and love each other exactly like any two really loving heterosexual spouses love each other - is it evil then?
You are assuming that homosexual "love" can be exactly like heterosexual love. However, if homosexual activity is not in the best interest of another person, helping them to committ homosexual acts would not and cannot be love. Your arguement assumes your conclusion by equating the two. Many reason have been given in this thread as to why the two should not be equated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #148 on: September 10, 2009, 06:20:08 PM »

Not quite so. I said that some homosexuals are called for celibacy, while others aren't.

One, however, does not choose to be a homosexual, and, apparently, not all homosexuals are able to be celibate...  

Again, I think you're over-stepping what you or I "know" and "don't know."  Your assertion that "not all homosexuals are able to be celibate" is a statement of capability, of ability to perform an action or live a way of life, and it is an assertion that limits their humanity.  Your assertion that "I said that some homosexuals are called for celibacy, while others aren't" is a statement of spiritual discernment, presuming a relationship with God that allows you to know what each person is called to do, or isn't called to do.  Unless you're an Elder of Great Counsel (which you may be - only God knows), I'm not sold on your (or anyone's) opinion as to what people are and are not called to do.  Don't limit what humanity is able to do through their self-control and relationship with their God.

Those who are, can become monastics or just live solitary lives and be happy.

Happiness isn't a barometer of success in the spiritual life.

Those who are not, if they are believing and obedient chidren of our Church, have two choices: suppress their sexual urges because they are "unnatural"

The urges are not "unnatural" - lust & extramarital sex are.

(just like airplanes that fly, contrary to "nature" of heavy objects that have to fall down...Smiley),

No, airplanes fly because of the nature of air pressure.  Orthodoxy is not opposed to science, but works with it when appropriate.

or act contrary to the teachings of the Church. I certainly do not advoccate the latter.

I'm glad to hear that  (I really didn't doubt it).

But I do not see why the Church cannot modify Her teaching on the "un-naturaleness" of each and every homosexual sexual act, even if the latter is between the two loving men or the two loving women who are committed to each other for life.

If the current teaching reflects eternal Truth, then it will never change.  If it reflects God's progressive revelation to us, which meets us where we are at, then it will change.  Only He knows - but He's very good at communicating His will to us, so fear not.

I agree! But the same can be said about homosexual sex. If it happens between two men who are using each other to satisfy their lust (like it certainly was the case with some married men with children in those Hellenistic households St. Paul was referring to), then it is evil. Even more so if a man uses his slave for that purpose (as it also, most definitely, was the case in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus and other cities St. Paul traveled to in the 1st century A.D.).

Ok...

But when it happens between two individuals of the same sex who cannot live without each other and love each other exactly like any two really loving heterosexual spouses love each other - is it evil then?  

So what is the purpose of sex?  Let's get to that, first, so we can stop this do-si-do.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #149 on: September 10, 2009, 07:04:02 PM »

Not quite so. I said that some homosexuals are called for celibacy, while others aren't.

One, however, does not choose to be a homosexual, and, apparently, not all homosexuals are able to be celibate...  

Again, I think you're over-stepping what you or I "know" and "don't know."  Your assertion that "not all homosexuals are able to be celibate" is a statement of capability, of ability to perform an action or live a way of life, and it is an assertion that limits their humanity.

But I was just assuming that in their ability to live their entire life without sexual relations they are exactly like you and me (heterosexuals). Is this a wrong assumption?

Happiness isn't a barometer of success in the spiritual life.

OK, call it peaceful?

The urges are not "unnatural" - lust & extramarital sex are.

Agreed. But again, why is sex to be always extramarital for a certain category of people?

(just like airplanes that fly, contrary to "nature" of heavy objects that have to fall down...Smiley),

No, airplanes fly because of the nature of air pressure.  Orthodoxy is not opposed to science, but works with it when appropriate.

Cleveland, I know why airplanes fly. I was deliberately making a funny argument because just as Greeks and Hellenistic Jews like St. Paul knew precisely zero about aeronautics, they also knew preciously little if anything about the work of human brain and about the nature of human sexuality. What they knew very well, was that a man marries a woman and has children with her. If he does not, he might "burn" (1 Cor. 7:9). In this case, it is better for him to marry. They also knew that fathers give their daughters in marriage to pretty much anyone (a man of course) they see fit, and our whole concept of romantic love does not have anything to do with marriage, family, childbirth. So no wonder St. Paul in Romans attacked men and women who had homosexual sex as those who did something "unnatural": what was "natural" to him and to everyone else in that epoch and culture was to marry for the purpose of preventing the "burn" and for begetting children. Now, please note that I am not robbing St. Paul of telling us some very essential and eternal truths in those very books of Romans and Corinthians. Yet, he was a human being, and he was limited in his knowledge. We are, too, but we know a bit more as far as sexuality, and family are concerned, don't we? Will you deny, for example, that we know that a girl can choose her own husband - and to St. Paul this was something that perhaps never even entered his mind?

So what is the purpose of sex?  Let's get to that, first, so we can stop this do-si-do.

To bring joy and peace in our lives, because sex is a precious, unique gift of ourselves to our spouses. Joy, peace and growing in our theosis.

P.S. It seems to me that you are irritated... let's not continue this discussion then. Also, because this topic may be too painful to some members of this forum, maybe, if you so wish, we could continue by PMs. Just a thought.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 07:06:52 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #150 on: September 10, 2009, 07:17:25 PM »


Agreed. But again, why is sex to be always extramarital for a certain category of people?


The problem is that you are trying to put men and women with homosexual inclinations into a different category. I don't think God sees us as gays and straights. Instead we are all just human. For all of us, it is licit to enjoy sexual relationships in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony with a person of the opposite sex. For all of us, it is illicit to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. God shows no partiality.
And once again, your arguement assumes your conclusion, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in quality. Such is simply not supported by the Church, Science, nor Sociology.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 07:18:18 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #151 on: September 10, 2009, 10:58:05 PM »


Agreed. But again, why is sex to be always extramarital for a certain category of people?


The problem is that you are trying to put men and women with homosexual inclinations into a different category. I don't think God sees us as gays and straights. Instead we are all just human. For all of us, it is licit to enjoy sexual relationships in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony with a person of the opposite sex.

And what if you can't, because for you, it is exactly the same as for me to "enjoy" sexual relationships with you? We do not choose that. We cannot influence on that. It's really like the color of our eyes.

For all of us, it is illicit to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. God shows no partiality.
And once again, your arguement assumes your conclusion, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in quality. Such is simply not supported by the Church, Science, nor Sociology.

Church - no. Science and sociology - prove?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 10:58:59 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #152 on: September 10, 2009, 11:00:18 PM »

Cleveland, I see no replies from you and no PMs. Was I right that you were (are?) irritated? I am sorry if I was the cause. Please PM...
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #153 on: September 10, 2009, 11:55:27 PM »


Agreed. But again, why is sex to be always extramarital for a certain category of people?


The problem is that you are trying to put men and women with homosexual inclinations into a different category. I don't think God sees us as gays and straights. Instead we are all just human. For all of us, it is licit to enjoy sexual relationships in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony with a person of the opposite sex.

And what if you can't, because for you, it is exactly the same as for me to "enjoy" sexual relationships with you? We do not choose that. We cannot influence on that. It's really like the color of our eyes.

For all of us, it is illicit to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. God shows no partiality.
And once again, your arguement assumes your conclusion, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in quality. Such is simply not supported by the Church, Science, nor Sociology.

Church - no. Science and sociology - prove?
Absolute homosexuality will make any society extinct in a generation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #154 on: September 11, 2009, 04:58:17 AM »


Agreed. But again, why is sex to be always extramarital for a certain category of people?


The problem is that you are trying to put men and women with homosexual inclinations into a different category. I don't think God sees us as gays and straights. Instead we are all just human. For all of us, it is licit to enjoy sexual relationships in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony with a person of the opposite sex.

And what if you can't, because for you, it is exactly the same as for me to "enjoy" sexual relationships with you? We do not choose that. We cannot influence on that. It's really like the color of our eyes.

For all of us, it is illicit to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. God shows no partiality.
And once again, your arguement assumes your conclusion, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in quality. Such is simply not supported by the Church, Science, nor Sociology.

Church - no. Science and sociology - prove? 
Absolute homosexuality will make any society extinct in a generation.

Thanks for lightening the tone  Smiley

I guess it's right to remember that we're only speaking of a small proportion of the population here, not the ravening hordes that some seem to imagine.
Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #155 on: September 11, 2009, 06:50:20 AM »

I am starting to think that trying to have a sober open discussion about homosexuality on this forum is like walking through a mine field wearing swim fins....
Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #156 on: September 11, 2009, 06:54:57 AM »

imagining the ravening hordes brings a lot of money to the coffers of right wing evangelists..
I have been Orthodox all of my life and i cannot remember ever hearing a sermon about homosexuality from the solea.
Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #157 on: September 11, 2009, 08:14:42 AM »

imagining the ravening hordes brings a lot of money to the coffers of right wing evangelists..
I have been Orthodox all of my life and i cannot remember ever hearing a sermon about homosexuality from the solea.

You are welcome anytime at the Orthodox church where I go to worship. Smiley
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #158 on: September 11, 2009, 08:20:59 AM »

Cleveland, I see no replies from you and no PMs. Was I right that you were (are?) irritated? I am sorry if I was the cause. Please PM... 

No, I wasn't that irritated or mad - I try to stay dispassionate when it comes to discussions here.  I've just been working on other things and peeking in on this thread, even though I haven't had the time for any extended or complete answers to any of the pending questions.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #159 on: September 11, 2009, 08:54:52 AM »

I find it very difficult to believe that an Orthodox priest in a Canonical Church would preach about homosexuality.I understand and I may be wrong that sermons should be based on the scriptural readings of the day.
I have heard clergy comment about the subject but never in a sermon in Church
« Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 08:55:32 AM by SDMPNS » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #160 on: September 11, 2009, 09:36:28 AM »



And what if you can't, because for you, it is exactly the same as for me to "enjoy" sexual relationships with you? We do not choose that. We cannot influence on that. It's really like the color of our eyes.
Then those persons don't get to enjoy sex. And just so you know, not all people get to enjoy all the pleasures of this world. This would include some colors. I happen to be red green color blind so I don't get to see every color. Not everyone get's to have sex. Such is life.

Church - no. Science and sociology - prove?
The Church has consistently and constantly opposed homosexuality. Science shows that it is an aberration by analyzing evolution. Sociology/psychology has demonstrated such by showing that the majority of homosexual men cannot establish mature and lasting romantic relationships.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #161 on: September 11, 2009, 09:37:56 AM »

I find it very difficult to believe that an Orthodox priest in a Canonical Church would preach about homosexuality.I understand and I may be wrong that sermons should be based on the scriptural readings of the day.
I have heard clergy comment about the subject but never in a sermon in Church

Well, If the EO church every has readings from Romans Chapter one, then there is defintely an opportunity for a sermon on homosexuality.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #162 on: September 11, 2009, 09:40:16 AM »

I find it very difficult to believe that an Orthodox priest in a Canonical Church would preach about homosexuality.I understand and I may be wrong that sermons should be based on the scriptural readings of the day.
I have heard clergy comment about the subject but never in a sermon in Church

I don't think I've ever heard a sermon on the matter, either.  Only articles and informal conversations.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #163 on: September 11, 2009, 09:46:07 AM »

I am starting to think that trying to have a sober open discussion about homosexuality on this forum is like walking through a mine field wearing swim fins....

It's tough.  I think people want to tend to the extremes on this argument ("They're all damned," vs. "Let 'em marry in the Church") instead of taking a middle (and, most likely, correct) path.  That's why I've consistently voiced my objection to these discussions on this site: we've had 50+ threads about homosexuality, and none have been productive or good because of the wacky positions people take.  This thread is actually the first time in years that I have actively participated in such a thread - largely because it seemed to me the level of discourse was different.  Sadly, I was mistaken (at least to a small degree - not quite to the level that I have been in the past).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #164 on: September 11, 2009, 09:51:41 AM »



And what if you can't, because for you, it is exactly the same as for me to "enjoy" sexual relationships with you? We do not choose that. We cannot influence on that. It's really like the color of our eyes.
Then those persons don't get to enjoy sex. And just so you know, not all people get to enjoy all the pleasures of this world. This would include some colors. I happen to be red green color blind so I don't get to see every color. Not everyone get's to have sex. Such is life.


Yes, but you couldn't choose to see red/green colour differences if you wanted to. That's the difference I think.

Quote
Church - no. Science and sociology - prove?
The Church has consistently and constantly opposed homosexuality. Science shows that it is an aberration by analyzing evolution.

But there are plenty of aberrations in the human race, which aren't considered morally wrong. It's an aberration to be albino, for example. It's perfectly possible (indeed, it has been suggested) that homosexuality has some useful role to play in evolutionary terms.

Quote
Sociology/psychology has demonstrated such by showing that the majority of homosexual men cannot establish mature and lasting romantic relationships.

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #165 on: September 11, 2009, 09:55:32 AM »



But there are plenty of aberrations in the human race, which aren't considered morally wrong. It's an aberration to be albino, for example. It's perfectly possible (indeed, it has been suggested) that homosexuality has some useful role to play in evolutionary terms.

So you admit that its an aberration? Ok, so now we are getting some where.  Cheesy

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions.
Please Elaborate. (And as an aside, I earned a minor in psychology).
« Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 09:56:04 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #166 on: September 11, 2009, 10:00:13 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes (i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood).  In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #167 on: September 11, 2009, 10:07:12 AM »



But there are plenty of aberrations in the human race, which aren't considered morally wrong. It's an aberration to be albino, for example. It's perfectly possible (indeed, it has been suggested) that homosexuality has some useful role to play in evolutionary terms.

So you admit that its an aberration? Ok, so now we are getting some where.  Cheesy


Did I ever deny it? Only a minority of people seem to be fully homosexual; it is not the usual pattern of attraction. But personally, I think it's a fortunate aberration in the human race.


That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions.
Please Elaborate. (And as an aside, I earned a minor in psychology).
[/quote]

Psychology observes people as they are. It isn't philosophy (though you seem to be thinking philosophically about psychology). What I mean is, you might do studies in psychology and observe that large numbers of gay men didn't make strong monogamous attachments. You might find all sorts of insightful explanations as to why this should be so. But behaviours are socially conditioned: you could not, I believe, extrapolate from your findings that such monogamous relationships were impossible to gay men. Do you think that makes sense, or not?

My PhD is working on building some bridges between psychology and the history of reading, but I am very much a beginner in my study of the subject, so I apologise if I've got it wrong.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #168 on: September 11, 2009, 10:09:58 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #169 on: September 11, 2009, 10:27:53 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #170 on: September 11, 2009, 10:37:08 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.

Yep, but only if the current social conditions remain constant. Otherwise, you're not comparing apples and apples. That's why, in this particular debate (when we're talking about the possibility of the Church perhaps adopting a different approach), psychological studies of what gay men may or may not be capable of in present-day society isn't going to change my mind. As you know, I'm far from convinced that all psychologists would agree on this topic anyway.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #171 on: September 11, 2009, 10:51:06 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.

Yep, but only if the current social conditions remain constant. Otherwise, you're not comparing apples and apples. That's why, in this particular debate (when we're talking about the possibility of the Church perhaps adopting a different approach), psychological studies of what gay men may or may not be capable of in present-day society isn't going to change my mind. As you know, I'm far from convinced that all psychologists would agree on this topic anyway.

That's true. In fact, homosexuality is no more considered a mental illness by psychologists. The fact that homosexuals are less likely to built solid relationships is due to moral prejudice and isolation ("homophobia"), which on the contrary is often a psychological illness (hatred, even in religion, is an illness, don't you think?). I am not supporting, as you perfectly know, neither gay marriages/sex nor homophobia; I am encouraging an softer attitude towards homosexuals. I don't think the Church could ever accept sodomy. Many would say (as it's been said of women priests) that the Spirit breaths where He wants, but since gay sex is strictly forbidden by the canons, and the canons are written under the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church, I don't think He might contradict himself, or change His mind over such a crucial subject. And on the question "Why is gay marriage forbidden?" we should only answer "God knows". Nevertheless, I am not against homosexual love - although risky as it might be. That's why a softer position in the Church might lead gays and lesbians to trust the parish priest, who would see when a couple can or cannot "survive" without sex, in a pure platonic love as it would be allowed in the Church.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #172 on: September 11, 2009, 10:52:30 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.

Yep, but only if the current social conditions remain constant. Otherwise, you're not comparing apples and apples. That's why, in this particular debate (when we're talking about the possibility of the Church perhaps adopting a different approach), psychological studies of what gay men may or may not be capable of in present-day society isn't going to change my mind. As you know, I'm far from convinced that all psychologists would agree on this topic anyway.
Then let's look at other societies that accepted homosexuality like rome and greece... who, btw, practiced all kinds of sexual pervertions.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #173 on: September 11, 2009, 10:56:44 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.

Yep, but only if the current social conditions remain constant. Otherwise, you're not comparing apples and apples. That's why, in this particular debate (when we're talking about the possibility of the Church perhaps adopting a different approach), psychological studies of what gay men may or may not be capable of in present-day society isn't going to change my mind. As you know, I'm far from convinced that all psychologists would agree on this topic anyway.
Then let's look at other societies that accepted homosexuality like rome and greece... who, btw, practiced all kinds of sexual pervertions.

Why would we look to Rome or Greece for guidance as Christians?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #174 on: September 11, 2009, 10:58:53 AM »

That is not how psychology works. Psychology comments on the way people behave in their current conditions

Eh, Psychology can and does comment on normally predictable outcomes


Agreed.

Quote
(i.e. if Child X is deprived of human contact, they are very likely to show the following symptoms in adulthood). 

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Quote
In that vein, it is possible (I haven't researched the particular claim myself) that Psychological study & analysis reveals that homosexual men are unable to build "mature and lasting romantic relationships."

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!
But can provide emperical evidence to demonstrate that they are less likely to form those kinds of relationships.

Yep, but only if the current social conditions remain constant. Otherwise, you're not comparing apples and apples. That's why, in this particular debate (when we're talking about the possibility of the Church perhaps adopting a different approach), psychological studies of what gay men may or may not be capable of in present-day society isn't going to change my mind. As you know, I'm far from convinced that all psychologists would agree on this topic anyway.
Then let's look at other societies that accepted homosexuality like rome and greece... who, btw, practiced all kinds of sexual pervertions.

Why would we look to Rome or Greece for guidance as Christians?
I was talking about sociologically. Rome and Greece are just another sign post along the way demonstrating that homosexuality and sexual depravity often go hand in hand in "great" societies.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #175 on: September 11, 2009, 11:10:54 AM »

Dear Papist,
in a previous post you stated that homosexuals are psychologically ill, and that psychologists state this. First of all, psychology is not a source of ecclesiastical right, and secondarily, it is not true.
Quote
The Australian Psychological Society states:
“    "Homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation. The Australian Psychological Society acknowledges the lack of scientific evidence for the usefulness of conversion therapy, and notes that it can in fact be harmful for the individual. Changing the sexual orientation of a person is not simply a matter of changing the person's sexual behavior. It would require altering the emotional, romantic and sexual feelings of the person and restructuring self-concept and social identity."[25]    ”

Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists states "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."[26] and "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."[27] United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".[28]

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime".[29] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[30] In a joint statement with other major American medical organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[31] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".

This is from Wikipedia, and I have already controlled the sources, so that's exactly what psychologists state.

Also, your claim that the "normality" of homosexuality is disproved by evolution is also a direct contradiction with biology. There are in fact animals which have a tendency to homosexuality and bisexuality.
Quote
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
there is an entire article dedicated to homo- and bisexuality in the animal kingdom here:
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals so your point is void of validity.
Here church tradition is what comes first. We are not animals, and our so-called evolution only consists of a "progress" in our body with respect to animals, but it's our souls that the Church is concerned with, so any connection between human and animal sexuality should be left aside.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,275


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #176 on: September 11, 2009, 11:45:43 AM »

Dear Papist,
in a previous post you stated that homosexuals are psychologically ill, and that psychologists state this. First of all, psychology is not a source of ecclesiastical right, and secondarily, it is not true.
Wrong. I am well aware of the politically motivated decision of the APA and other such organizations to remove homosexuality from the list psychological disorders. This however does not square with actual psychological data. For example, if studies show that homosexuals are less likely to be able to establish mature relationships because of the immaturity that often goes hand in hand with homosexuality, then we should be asking if the data is actually pointing towards a disorder. Second, the sexual organs, from a purely biological persepctive, is designed/evolved to function between a man and a woman. The mechanics really are for heterosexuality. If a person is attached to something that is contrary to the purpose of the design of their own body, then that would be most certainly be a a psychological problem.

Now as for the ecclesiastical point, no, psychology does not rule the Church. However, it does give evidence about what is healthy and unhealthy. If homosexuality is psychologically unhealthy then I would think that would be good evidence that it is not in God's design for us. EVIDENCE.
Also, your claim that the "normality" of homosexuality is disproved by evolution is also a direct contradiction with biology. There are in fact animals which have a tendency to homosexuality and bisexuality.
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
there is an entire article dedicated to homo- and bisexuality in the animal kingdom here:
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals so your point is void of validity.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Just because homosexuality  occurs among other species does not mean that the purpose of the sex organs is homosexuality. It does not really serve a useful purpose and is not the intended consequence of natural selection. Further, Homosapiens are not those species. We are a separate sepecies with different needs.
Here church tradition is what comes first. We are not animals, and our so-called evolution only consists of a "progress" in our body with respect to animals, but it's our souls that the Church is concerned with, so any connection between human and animal sexuality should be left aside.

In Christ,   Alex

I agree. Human and animal sexuality are different. But because our bodies are the result of evolution and human are neither simply body nor soul, but rather a composite, its important to bring up the matter of evolution into the discussion
However, we can drop the word evolution if it makes you more comfortable and just replace it with anatomy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #177 on: September 11, 2009, 11:48:29 AM »

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Not necessary - just "likely," and certainly more likely than if the child had human contact.

Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!

I shouldn't have used the word "unable."  My sentence should have read "It is possible that psychological studies have shown that homosexual couples have less likelihood (much greater difficulty, etc.) of building mature, lasting romantic relationships" (and "less likelihood" could be "under 1 in 1 million," but it's still a number >0).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #178 on: September 11, 2009, 11:52:33 AM »

Agreed - if you mean this as an example, not a necessary sequence?

Not necessary - just "likely," and certainly more likely than if the child had human contact.


Sorry - I still don't quite understand. Are you saying that all psychological disorders are the result of lack of contact in childhood? Or are you just using the child who has been neglected as an example of social pressures affecting growth? I ask because parents often worry they have 'made' their child gay, and it seems a real shame that they feel responsible in that way.


Yes - but I would argue the key words here are 'possible' and 'unable'. I agree it's possible, but I don't think we can prove anything. This works both ways - I don't see that I or anyone else could prove that homosexual men are always capable of mature and lasting relationships!

I shouldn't have used the word "unable."  My sentence should have read "It is possible that psychological studies have shown that homosexual couples have less likelihood (much greater difficulty, etc.) of building mature, lasting romantic relationships" (and "less likelihood" could be "under 1 in 1 million," but it's still a number >0).
[/quote]

Ok, I see. Thanks.

Papist - I still don't understand what you're saying about anatomy. I repeat: as far as I know, the sexual acts of lesbians are a subset of the sexual acts between heterosexual couples.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,094


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #179 on: September 11, 2009, 11:55:50 AM »

Also, your claim that the "normality" of homosexuality is disproved by evolution is also a direct contradiction with biology. There are in fact animals which have a tendency to homosexuality and bisexuality.
Quote
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
there is an entire article dedicated to homo- and bisexuality in the animal kingdom here:
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals so your point is void of validity.

Cannibalism is also normal for the animal world.  From the wiki article on Cannibalism:
Quote
In zoology, cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species[citation needed] (this estimate is from 1981, and likely a gross underestimation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_%28zoology%29

There are many things that occur in the Animal Kingdom that are actions which would be reprehensible if done by human beings.  They may very well be actions that are unique to the group (Animal Kingdom minus Humans), and whether they have ever been practiced by us or not they are activities that do not befit human dignity and God's plan for His chosen people.

You make an excellent point below that Church Tradition comes first.

Here church tradition is what comes first. We are not animals, and our so-called evolution only consists of a "progress" in our body with respect to animals, but it's our souls that the Church is concerned with, so any connection between human and animal sexuality should be left aside.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tags: adelphopoiia marriage homosexuality 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.