OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 08:47:36 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 25694 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2009, 01:13:17 PM »


Thank you, Father, for your very knowledgeable assessment. (Very respectfully and sincerely I ask) "Is there a concept of “carrying the cross of racism?"  (The toxic site seemed to focus on specific ethnic jurisdictions.)

Well, I would say that most racism in general is based on fear of others derived from one's own sense of self-loathing (we tend to loath in others what we hate in ourselves).  Fear is something all people struggle with, which is why all of us are susceptible in some way to racist attitudes.

Then again, what you mean by racism these days can be rather blurry.  There things about certain cultures that I don't like and try to avoid, but that does not make me racist.  In our modern American culture, the term is being overused, so that, for example, I was once accused of racism because I despise 'rap music.'  I told the accuser I didn't think incessant talking (which is what rap sounds like to me) was a racial requirement.

I didn't read enough of the site to make a determination one way or another, since it really was giving me a headache with its jumbled organization and overwhelming offensiveness (a dog with a bishop's mitre caught my eye).  I probably would not dignify it with the term 'racist,' but merely stupid.

Getting back to your question, we all bear the temptation to fear.  Again, the question is whether we give in to temptation or struggle with God's help against it.  I may also be a racist, but the question is not about the temptation but rather whether or not I am willing to fight to overcome it.  As Christians, we are called to love everyone, and this Divine Love we are called to manifest in the world is supposed to overcome our negative attitudes towards others.


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2009, 01:34:13 PM »

^Thank you again, Father.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2009, 02:19:14 PM »

^Hate the sin, love the sinner (and by the sin, I mean actions, not the tendency). I agree with all of the above.
Precisely LOL
Quote
Pray for me AlexanderOfBergamo.  I am finding it difficult to embrace priests that stir up hate and potentially deadly crimes against other priests.
I once thought the same too. The advantage of Orthodoxy is that the opinion of one bishop is not authoritative. I even abandoned Roman Catholicism because the judgment of one person, aka the Pope, was binding for everyone in that Church. A bishop - even the Patriarch of Constantinople - has no more power then any other; on the contrary, they only have a greater burden and responsibility in guiding their flock, and they often fail because they're just humans. Don't hate who thinks that faith could justify hatred or violence; on the contrary, pray God that these people might see the light of the true Gospel and become transformed - even transfigured - in holiness by its message of love and hope.


At any rate, aside from the obvious un-Christian rage, there is a real skirting of the problem at hand regarding Theosis and homosexuality: homosexuality is less about one's attraction to the same gender as it is a rejection of one's own gender.  This is why, in general, homosexuals tend to put on airs of the gender they are not, making a male 'effeminate' and a lesbian, well... I'm not so sure of the proper word for false masculinity in polite conversation.


Not necessarily true. While many homosexual men can be seen as being very effeminate, there is in fact a large percentage of homosexual men who are more on the masculine side in their behavior. We don't normally notice these masculine homosexual men because they don't stick out like the others do. What's interesting about this is that these "masculine" homosexual men tend to "date" or partner up with the more effeminate ones.

I have to agree with you, Papist. I personally know some homosexual men and women myself. As they're not in my own religion (most of them are atheists, of course because they see that "Church hatred" I mantioned in my previous post) I can't change their mind, so I keep a friendship hoping that through my witness of religion they might save themselves and be attracted by Holy Orthodoxy. The only exception to this is my best friend, a girl who made the choice of chastity because she has discovered Holy Orthodoxy: she is an example of how one can be attracted to the same sex and learn how to control it and become impassible to sexuality (but not heterosexual, that would be against her true feelings).
Anyway, among these people there are at least a male who could never be thought of as a homosexual (or at least I couldn't understand it alone if he didn't tell me in secret) and of a girl who is... well, very seductive and feminine, I couldn't think of her as a lesbian even when she told me. So, let's stop this prejudice of "gay=effeminate" and "lesbian=masculine". Also, bisexuals are generally in harmony with their biological sex, so they don't fit in the discussion  on sex-exchange which has been proposed here.
Quote
JN1034 makes a logic jump that leads him to false assumptions: marriage and sex do not necessarily make people more happy.  This is why St. Paul counsels against marriage.  Marriage is not a natural right, but a gift from God.  To some He does not give the gift, but that does not mean He does not love us.  It simply means He has chosen another path for us to struggle along.  To permit homosexual marriage and sex is akin to breaking the cross.  By denying the burden, it no longer becomes a means of salvation (when struggled with), but rather a certain source of condemnation.

On this point, I totally agree Father, and I'd put my signature behind it if I could. I even feel a great esteem for these people blessed by God for being called to celibacy. If they only knew it... what a great responsibility is it for the Church to teach them the true meaning and purpose of their condition!

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")
elgreca262
Orthodox Life Coach Speaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2009, 09:51:58 PM »


The attacks on Jn1034 are cowerdice, have become personal, and do not debate substantively the issues which divide. I don't agree philosophically with anyone on all issues. I don't know them personally and aside from their use of provocative imagery their actual posts are encouraging loyalty and love to the Ecumenical Throne. I believe if someone want to search more deeply then their side bar is filled with many thought provoking messages and images. I personally believe that sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage are the result of our fallen state. I also readily accept that many married couple engage in sexual conduct not befitting a Christian.  According to Church teaching even masturbation is considered an act outside the acceptable limits established for the welfare of mankind. Homosexuality is on the continuum of sexual conduct or misconduct. I myself to not prescribe to gay marriage through the Orthodox Church. Nor do I accept polygamy as a mystery of the Orthodox church. As a side note, I also do not support the ordination of women as I see feminism as a cult of death.We cannot expect that the church would modify or modulate teachings because people feel or believe a certain way. We can lovingly encourage not preach more suitable expressions of love while relegating sexual conduct to the marital union and imitate Christ with mercy and love. There were ancient bonding rituals or sacraments to further bless and establish close bonds between individuals but these were not marriages as I have come to understand and learn. The group of brothers on JN1034 have many important and relevant messages and teachings for us to learn from. This does not mandate that we accept everything they believe. I have common ground with them on loyalty to the Ecumenical Throne and my serious concerns about the hijacking of the blogosphere to dissenters and those who wish to turn upside down the hierarchy of the church with their brand of liberty; who incite in internal revolution which aggressively attack the mother church and her rightful place. These heretics choose to come here and bash Jn1034 on their orientation rather then the substance of te debate that was actually being discussed. They came to discredit their arguement to some homophobic or anti-homosexual gay bashing. I feel that homosexuals have enough to bear knowing tha they fall outside the norm. They themselves are bashed and discredited by the extremist within their own group. This is far more objectionable and threatening to the church economy. I do not condone personally homosexual behavior or any sexual expression which falls outside of the church teachings. I will not however condemn the homosexual. I perhaps am more offended with the cheating husband. I know that sin is sin; but we must also get real: a child molester sins but his sin has greater impact on society and his soul then someone who unfortunately has a moment of indiscretion. Gays and straights can all love God and serve the Church. They can all sacrifice and defend the honor of the Orthodox Faith. We can all reach out to the lost people of God both straight and gay.  We must all watch that we don't cozy up and unfortunately finds ourselves over identifying with our sinful fallen state. I am a sinner who falls short of the mark regularly. I strive to be and do better. 

Edited to remove blog advert
Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 10:00:56 PM by Schultz » Logged

In His service,
angela
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2009, 11:29:57 PM »

^^ Wow! I completely missed the "thought provoking messages" that encouraged loyalty and love to the Ecumenical Throne on JN1034.....must have been that picture of my Lord, Jesus Christ, depicted as a       M O R B I D L Y    obese man while hanging on the cross FOR YOU AND ME, that distorted my vision.  No, maybe it was the dog with a bishop’s mitre.  No, maybe it was the rant about how the +MP was a thieving Commie.  No, maybe it was the rant suggesting that an elderly professor at St. Vlad’s was a murderer, which could incite violence against him or his family. No, maybe it was.................... 
« Last Edit: September 08, 2009, 11:39:54 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2009, 07:45:10 AM »

Dear ms.hoorah,
I encourage you to abandon your accusations which mine Church unity at its base. Even when I don't approve the choices and beliefs of the EP (and I often do this), I'll never accuse him vehemently as you do. After all, we're laypeople and it's not our job to oversee the faith of others in our own Church. The EP is actually in communion with the other three Eastern Patriachates, the Patriarch of Moscow, and many other hierarchs who can vigil over him as fellow bishops, but have naturally chosen to keep in communion with the Phanar. There must be a reason for that... only heresy could push the other churches to abandon the Ecumenical Patriarchate and re-found it... which is of course (I hope) not to happen, since in order to merit it he would be abandoning the dogmas of the Fist Millennium or the indisputed practices of the Orthodox Church, and at that point he wouldn't be Orthodox anymore even before a public condemnation of the Church.

Elgreca262: what do you mean by "I see feminism as a cult of death"? Can you clarify this opinion? I know it's a bit outside of topic, but I think your statement should not be put in the thread like a stone in the water, but like a seed for further discussion (after all, the OP also allows a discussion about gender).

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")
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,143


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2009, 07:52:27 AM »

^^ Wow! I completely missed the "thought provoking messages" that encouraged loyalty and love to the Ecumenical Throne on JN1034.....must have been that picture of my Lord, Jesus Christ, depicted as a       M O R B I D L Y    obese man while hanging on the cross FOR YOU AND ME, that distorted my vision.  No, maybe it was the dog with a bishop’s mitre.  No, maybe it was the rant about how the +MP was a thieving Commie.  No, maybe it was the rant suggesting that an elderly professor at St. Vlad’s was a murderer, which could incite violence against him or his family. No, maybe it was....................  

AlexanderOfBergamo,
Methinks the above is an exercise in extreme sarcasm.  But I'll let ms.hoorah speak definitively for herself.
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.
elgreca262
Orthodox Life Coach Speaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2009, 08:38:32 AM »

My commentary regarding feminism being a cult of death is when taken to it's end it is a culture of death. Death of the woman as a unique creature of God. Refashioning her as something altogether different. There are practical reasons why N.O.W never speak out against cruelty to women who are conservative or anti abortion. Feminism which lays firm grasp of the concept that gender is beside the point in every scenario is unnatural and way off the mark. Abortion should be no suprise, growing rates of promiscuity and divorce are expected. We all need to celebrate the roles and visions God has for his people his men and women. This would be the case for homosexual tendencies and other sexual devient behaviors. I might at that JN1034 have very provocative imagery on their site. Rather then just bashing their statements or pictures I have been reading diligently about their position and the church position. I don't consider all sin to be equitable the sin of abortion is different then the sin of stealing though both are transgressions. I understood well one point they make regarding sexual orientation: there have been and will continue to be homosexual individuals who identify themselves as orthodox who either have martyred for this cause or will do so in the future. There have been many defenders of the faith some perhaps notable and others anonymous who have suffered for their faith, struggling with their sin as we all should. I am not here to defend, nor can I defend in truth, the position that homosexual behavior is equitable with heterosexual behavior within the confines of the marital bed. I beleive for the orthodox church marriage is confined to one man one woman. I believe that there is little difference between the man who engages in sexual behavior with another man and the husband who watches pornography. They both damage their relationship with God and with their partners. This is as honest as I can be. Shunning the seeker, the lover (agape) of Christ, is not Christian. Attacking ones weakness because you can't debate other issues with which you disagree demonstrates ineptitude.
Logged

In His service,
angela
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 #53 on: September 09, 2009, 08:50:17 AM »

What about unmarried heterosexual couples who live together? Should they be married in an Orthodox service? There does seem to be a bit of discrepency in how we treat these issues.I know several couples who "shacked up" to use an old time label who were subsequently married in Church.
The JN1034 site is getting lots of publicity and numerous hits on their site...Their imagery is very disturbing to me personally..I do wish we could have a discussion about the issues they raise.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2009, 10:01:27 AM »

My commentary regarding feminism being a cult of death is when taken to it's end it is a culture of death. Death of the woman as a unique creature of God. Refashioning her as something altogether different. There are practical reasons why N.O.W never speak out against cruelty to women who are conservative or anti abortion. Feminism which lays firm grasp of the concept that gender is beside the point in every scenario is unnatural and way off the mark. Abortion should be no suprise, growing rates of promiscuity and divorce are expected. We all need to celebrate the roles and visions God has for his people his men and women. This would be the case for homosexual tendencies and other sexual devient behaviors. I might at that JN1034 have very provocative imagery on their site. Rather then just bashing their statements or pictures I have been reading diligently about their position and the church position. I don't consider all sin to be equitable the sin of abortion is different then the sin of stealing though both are transgressions. I understood well one point they make regarding sexual orientation: there have been and will continue to be homosexual individuals who identify themselves as orthodox who either have martyred for this cause or will do so in the future. There have been many defenders of the faith some perhaps notable and others anonymous who have suffered for their faith, struggling with their sin as we all should. I am not here to defend, nor can I defend in truth, the position that homosexual behavior is equitable with heterosexual behavior within the confines of the marital bed. I beleive for the orthodox church marriage is confined to one man one woman. I believe that there is little difference between the man who engages in sexual behavior with another man and the husband who watches pornography. They both damage their relationship with God and with their partners. This is as honest as I can be. Shunning the seeker, the lover (agape) of Christ, is not Christian. Attacking ones weakness because you can't debate other issues with which you disagree demonstrates ineptitude.
Thanks for making your position clearer. I support your world view. On the personal sanctity of homosexual Christians, your right. Wasn't Seraphim Rose an homosexual before he took on his monastic tonsure? Isn't the relationship between Serge and Bacchus, and that of Perpetua and Felicitas, more then just an ordinary friendship? Of course! I think these two couples of martyrs really loved each other in an intimate sense, but that doesn't change the way they were faithful to Christendom. The same church that condemns pederasty, has had no problem in canonizing these saints, because they are witness of how an Orthodox homosexual should behave. They're not icons of homosexual marriage... they're icons of a spiritual bond between people of the same gender. What a difference is this!

What about unmarried heterosexual couples who live together? Should they be married in an Orthodox service? There does seem to be a bit of discrepency in how we treat these issues.I know several couples who "shacked up" to use an old time label who were subsequently married in Church.
The JN1034 site is getting lots of publicity and numerous hits on their site...Their imagery is very disturbing to me personally..I do wish we could have a discussion about the issues they raise.

I don't know almost anything of JN1034, and sincerely, I have no time or intention to study and discuss their position: my path to Orthodoxy is led by God's love, by the original message of the Gospel, which is LOVE ("Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, all thy strenght and all thy mind"; "Love thy neighbour like thyself"; "Love each other, as I have loved you"; "Love your enemies...") and by Christ's example of mercy and understanding ("Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing"). There's no space for a message of hatred and discrimination, no matter what it is: a person who defends a just cause using violence and insults, is even a more serious sinner then the one opposing the cause with his life. Our Lord said not to judge. Judgment has been pronounced by God in the Holy Spirit's voice at the Ecumenical Councils and in the Bible, and we should just agree with what's already been established, and abstain from useless innuendos. This said, I think there's a slight distinction to be made in what you said.
Personally, I'm not contrary to two fiancés living together, as my answer to Liz's post clearly shows. What a betrothed couple must/should have in mind is, anyway, that this betrothal is just a temporary condition, and that the final aim of the couple is to wear those Crowns the priest will give them at the Holy Mystery of Matrimony. Even in the condition of betrothal, though, sex is strictly prohibited... the betrothed couple obtains the same MUSTs as a married couple but can't enjoy the same sexual relationship which is blessed and sacred only through the Sacrament. This way the Church doesn't show (as some atheists would say) some sort of sexophobia. On the contrary, in the Orthodox Church sex is so sacred that the Christian community is given rules (canons) by which the sanctity of the physical bond between two partners is defended. The care of sex in Orthodoxy is the same as for the sacraments, for monasticism and for every other aspect of an ordinary human life which could either help or compromise one's way towards God.


In Christ,    Alex
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 10:10:29 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » 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")
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2009, 10:25:13 AM »

My commentary regarding feminism being a cult of death is when taken to it's end it is a culture of death. Death of the woman as a unique creature of God. Refashioning her as something altogether different. There are practical reasons why N.O.W never speak out against cruelty to women who are conservative or anti abortion. Feminism which lays firm grasp of the concept that gender is beside the point in every scenario is unnatural and way off the mark. Abortion should be no suprise, growing rates of promiscuity and divorce are expected. We all need to celebrate the roles and visions God has for his people his men and women. This would be the case for homosexual tendencies and other sexual devient behaviors. I might at that JN1034 have very provocative imagery on their site. Rather then just bashing their statements or pictures I have been reading diligently about their position and the church position. I don't consider all sin to be equitable the sin of abortion is different then the sin of stealing though both are transgressions. I understood well one point they make regarding sexual orientation: there have been and will continue to be homosexual individuals who identify themselves as orthodox who either have martyred for this cause or will do so in the future. There have been many defenders of the faith some perhaps notable and others anonymous who have suffered for their faith, struggling with their sin as we all should. I am not here to defend, nor can I defend in truth, the position that homosexual behavior is equitable with heterosexual behavior within the confines of the marital bed. I beleive for the orthodox church marriage is confined to one man one woman. I believe that there is little difference between the man who engages in sexual behavior with another man and the husband who watches pornography. They both damage their relationship with God and with their partners. This is as honest as I can be. Shunning the seeker, the lover (agape) of Christ, is not Christian. Attacking ones weakness because you can't debate other issues with which you disagree demonstrates ineptitude.

I would consider myself a feminist. I do not think gender is 'beside the point'. I simply think that it is cruel and wrong to impose limitations on people based on their gender, which are not absolutely necessary. Thus, of course, men cannot have babies and women cannot grow beards. These are biological limitations. Nor can one reasonably expect that a male nurse should be allowed to insist upon intimate nursing of a nun, or a female doctor to a priest. These are limitations that result from respect for others. But, one should not object to the man becoming a nurse, or the woman a doctor. When I uphold the right of the female doctor and the male nurse, I consider myself a feminist. I expect my idea of feminism differs from yours, but I am slightly shocked that you can bring yourself to call it a 'cult of death'. And I certainly don't think anyone human has been 'refashioning' me!

Edit: I will also agree with Papist and others that it is simply not true that homosexuality results in men being less 'manly' and women less 'feminine'. I find it slightly offensive, too, that effeminacy in a man or the equivalent in a woman are seen as negative qualities. My partner cooked me a lovely meal yesterday: should we then condemn him for behaviour unbecoming to a man?!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 10:51:06 AM by Liz » Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2009, 12:02:17 PM »

^^ Wow! I completely missed the "thought provoking messages" that encouraged loyalty and love to the Ecumenical Throne on JN1034.....must have been that picture of my Lord, Jesus Christ, depicted as a       M O R B I D L Y    obese man while hanging on the cross FOR YOU AND ME, that distorted my vision.  No, maybe it was the dog with a bishop’s mitre.  No, maybe it was the rant about how the +MP was a thieving Commie.  No, maybe it was the rant suggesting that an elderly professor at St. Vlad’s was a murderer, which could incite violence against him or his family. No, maybe it was....................  

AlexanderOfBergamo,
Methinks the above is an exercise in extreme sarcasm.  But I'll let ms.hoorah speak definitively for herself.
Cleveland,
Sadly, no, these things are actually on this toxic site.  I am really unsure of why AlexanderOfBergamo bizarrely states I am accusing the +EP of creating this awful site.  Clearly, the +EP did not create this site and I never accused the +EP of this offense.  Very bizarre accusation!

The creators of this offensive filth placed what looks to be the +EP seal at the bottom of the page. In addition, they placed a gauge to show you that they are tracking or can track your IP number.  "Be careful" if you must visit this toilet.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 12:23:05 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2009, 12:48:55 PM »

My commentary regarding feminism being a cult of death is when taken to it's end it is a culture of death. Death of the woman as a unique creature of God. Refashioning her as something altogether different. There are practical reasons why N.O.W never speak out against cruelty to women who are conservative or anti abortion. Feminism which lays firm grasp of the concept that gender is beside the point in every scenario is unnatural and way off the mark. Abortion should be no suprise, growing rates of promiscuity and divorce are expected. We all need to celebrate the roles and visions God has for his people his men and women. This would be the case for homosexual tendencies and other sexual devient behaviors. I might at that JN1034 have very provocative imagery on their site. Rather then just bashing their statements or pictures I have been reading diligently about their position and the church position. I don't consider all sin to be equitable the sin of abortion is different then the sin of stealing though both are transgressions. I understood well one point they make regarding sexual orientation: there have been and will continue to be homosexual individuals who identify themselves as orthodox who either have martyred for this cause or will do so in the future. There have been many defenders of the faith some perhaps notable and others anonymous who have suffered for their faith, struggling with their sin as we all should. I am not here to defend, nor can I defend in truth, the position that homosexual behavior is equitable with heterosexual behavior within the confines of the marital bed. I beleive for the orthodox church marriage is confined to one man one woman. I believe that there is little difference between the man who engages in sexual behavior with another man and the husband who watches pornography. They both damage their relationship with God and with their partners. This is as honest as I can be. Shunning the seeker, the lover (agape) of Christ, is not Christian. Attacking ones weakness because you can't debate other issues with which you disagree demonstrates ineptitude.
Thanks for making your position clearer. I support your world view. On the personal sanctity of homosexual Christians, your right. Wasn't Seraphim Rose an homosexual before he took on his monastic tonsure? Isn't the relationship between Serge and Bacchus, and that of Perpetua and Felicitas, more then just an ordinary friendship?

HELLO? PRIESTS ON OCNET?  Please respond to this statement.

Of course! I think these two couples of martyrs really loved each other in an intimate sense, but that doesn't change the way they were faithful to Christendom. The same church that condemns pederasty, has had no problem in canonizing these saints, because they are witness of how an Orthodox homosexual should behave.

HELLO? PRIESTS ON OCNET?  Please respond to this statement.

 

I don't know almost anything of JN1034, and sincerely, I have no time or intention to study and discuss their position: my path to Orthodoxy is led by God's love, by the original message of the Gospel, which is LOVE ("Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, all thy strenght and all thy mind"; "Love thy neighbour like thyself"; "Love each other, as I have loved you"; "Love your enemies...") and by Christ's example of mercy and understanding ("Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing"). There's no space for a message of hatred and discrimination, no matter what it is: a person who defends a just cause using violence and insults, is even a more serious sinner then the one opposing the cause with his life.
There have been zero judgmental statements made on this thread EXCEPT about those who desire to distort the Orthodox Christian faith.  I am not a theologian because God needed me to pursue a career in healthcare. I am hoping a priest or deacon (soon to be ordained to the Holy Priesthood....Cleveland Smiley) will reply to your statements.

 
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2009, 01:00:20 PM »

Edit: I will also agree with Papist and others that it is simply not true that homosexuality results in men being less 'manly' and women less 'feminine'. I find it slightly offensive, too, that effeminacy in a man or the equivalent in a woman are seen as negative qualities. My partner cooked me a lovely meal yesterday: should we then condemn him for behaviour unbecoming to a man?!

Being 'effeminate' is quite different from being 'feminine' - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effeminate

Perhaps there are plenty of men who would find your assumption of cooking being a feminine trait as being offensive as well (Wolfgang Puck, Paul Prudhomme, Emeril Lagasse [sp?], etc.).  Being offended is not really evidence as to much of anything in many cases.

By effeminate, we are speaking of unnatural and constructed behaviors that purposely are out of place on a man.  It has nothing to do with feminine traits, since many of those who are effeminate grossly exaggerate feminine behavior in a cartoonish way.

However, I stand by the premise that most gays are either effeminate or tend to be attracted to the effeminate in other men.  Obviously there will always be a minority exception, but the overriding gay culture is awash in false genderism.  Yes, there are a few 'Bears,' akin the the English 'rough trade' variety of homosexuality, but their relationships hinge on one partner assuming 'dominance' while the other is the 'submissive,' the latter who gives up his male role to bring balance to the relationship.  Now, you can spend all day citing personal experiences of the exceptions, but one trip to West Hollywood or Santa Monica will show that the overwhelming majority of gay men display effeminate traits.  For some it is a pleasure, but others speak of it as a burden (read Quentin Crisp for insight into the inner suffering of the effeminate gay male).

Aside from affect, I also operate from the assumption that part of genuine masculinity and genuine femininity is attraction to the opposite sex, ergo homosexuality is a rejection of the created order and therefore a rejection of one's self.  Just so you understand that I am not singling out homosexuals, the same is true for obese people who eat to the point of joint damage and organ failure, the alcoholic who drinks himself to death, and countless other 'dangerous attractions.'  Each of these reject the reality of who we are in Jesus Christ and the cosmos.  When we sin, we reject our true nature and identity, and ultimately ourselves.

I do not think all homosexuals choose their orientation, but most alcoholics do not choose their bodily reaction to alcohol either.  Other personality disorders can be traced to involuntary biological problems.  This being the case, a person with a brain injury that leaves him susceptible to violence is still expected to control his behavior.  He may be tempted to violence, but society expects we control our instincts.  So long as we sin, we reject who we are.  I don't condemn homosexuals for their temptations, since I know my own weaknesses.  I do condemn those who say that we should act out on our impulses just because we did not choose them.

That's the absurdity of 'gay marriage.'


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2009, 01:12:44 PM »

Edit: I will also agree with Papist and others that it is simply not true that homosexuality results in men being less 'manly' and women less 'feminine'. I find it slightly offensive, too, that effeminacy in a man or the equivalent in a woman are seen as negative qualities. My partner cooked me a lovely meal yesterday: should we then condemn him for behaviour unbecoming to a man?!

Being 'effeminate' is quite different from being 'feminine' - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effeminate

Given the rest of your post, I remain confused as to what you think the difference is.

Quote
Perhaps there are plenty of men who would find your assumption of cooking being a feminine trait as being offensive as well (Wolfgang Puck, Paul Prudhomme, Emeril Lagasse [sp?], etc.).  Being offended is not really evidence as to much of anything in many cases.


My intention was to expose how ridiculous it is to pretend that behaviour stereotypes such as 'masculine' and 'feminine', 'effeminate' and 'butch' are anything but a social construct.

Quote
By effeminate, we are speaking of unnatural and constructed behaviors that purposely are out of place on a man.  It has nothing to do with feminine traits, since many of those who are effeminate grossly exaggerate feminine behavior in a cartoonish way.


Like how?

Quote
However, I stand by the premise that most gays are either effeminate or tend to be attracted to the effeminate in other men.  Obviously there will always be a minority exception, but the overriding gay culture is awash in false genderism.  Yes, there are a few 'Bears,' akin the the English 'rough trade' variety of homosexuality, but their relationships hinge on one partner assuming 'dominance' while the other is the 'submissive,' the latter who gives up his male role to bring balance to the relationship.  Now, you can spend all day citing personal experiences of the exceptions, but one trip to West Hollywood or Santa Monica will show that the overwhelming majority of gay men display effeminate traits.  For some it is a pleasure, but others speak of it as a burden (read Quentin Crisp for insight into the inner suffering of the effeminate gay male).

I would ask, respectfully, whether it is possible that you've formed this opinion because you simply don't notice as homosexual those men and women whose behaviour does not draw you to form that conclusion about their sexuality? I have only once met a stereotypical 'butch' lesbian, and I know a whole lot of lesbians.  Nor do I know of many couples who adopt dominant/submissive roles to any greater extent than heterosexual couples.


Quote
Aside from affect, I also operate from the assumption that part of genuine masculinity and genuine femininity is attraction to the opposite sex, ergo homosexuality is a rejection of the created order and therefore a rejection of one's self.

Ok, I understand this, as far as it goes. But you say this is only 'part of' masculinity and femininity.

Quote
Just so you understand that I am not singling out homosexuals, the same is true for obese people who eat to the point of joint damage and organ failure, the alcoholic who drinks himself to death, and countless other 'dangerous attractions.'  Each of these reject the reality of who we are in Jesus Christ and the cosmos.  When we sin, we reject our true nature and identity, and ultimately ourselves.

I do not think all homosexuals choose their orientation, but most alcoholics do not choose their bodily reaction to alcohol either.  Other personality disorders can be traced to involuntary biological problems.  This being the case, a person with a brain injury that leaves him susceptible to violence is still expected to control his behavior.  He may be tempted to violence, but society expects we control our instincts.  So long as we sin, we reject who we are.  I don't condemn homosexuals for their temptations, since I know my own weaknesses.  I do condemn those who say that we should act out on our impulses just because we did not choose them.

That's the absurdity of 'gay marriage.'


[/font][/size]
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2009, 01:29:31 PM »

Edit: I will also agree with Papist and others that it is simply not true that homosexuality results in men being less 'manly' and women less 'feminine'. I find it slightly offensive, too, that effeminacy in a man or the equivalent in a woman are seen as negative qualities. My partner cooked me a lovely meal yesterday: should we then condemn him for behaviour unbecoming to a man?!

Being 'effeminate' is quite different from being 'feminine' - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effeminate

Perhaps there are plenty of men who would find your assumption of cooking being a feminine trait as being offensive as well (Wolfgang Puck, Paul Prudhomme, Emeril Lagasse [sp?], etc.).  Being offended is not really evidence as to much of anything in many cases.

By effeminate, we are speaking of unnatural and constructed behaviors that purposely are out of place on a man.  It has nothing to do with feminine traits, since many of those who are effeminate grossly exaggerate feminine behavior in a cartoonish way.

However, I stand by the premise that most gays are either effeminate or tend to be attracted to the effeminate in other men.  Obviously there will always be a minority exception, but the overriding gay culture is awash in false genderism.  Yes, there are a few 'Bears,' akin the the English 'rough trade' variety of homosexuality, but their relationships hinge on one partner assuming 'dominance' while the other is the 'submissive,' the latter who gives up his male role to bring balance to the relationship.  Now, you can spend all day citing personal experiences of the exceptions, but one trip to West Hollywood or Santa Monica will show that the overwhelming majority of gay men display effeminate traits.  For some it is a pleasure, but others speak of it as a burden (read Quentin Crisp for insight into the inner suffering of the effeminate gay male).

Aside from affect, I also operate from the assumption that part of genuine masculinity and genuine femininity is attraction to the opposite sex, ergo homosexuality is a rejection of the created order and therefore a rejection of one's self.  Just so you understand that I am not singling out homosexuals, the same is true for obese people who eat to the point of joint damage and organ failure, the alcoholic who drinks himself to death, and countless other 'dangerous attractions.'  Each of these reject the reality of who we are in Jesus Christ and the cosmos.  When we sin, we reject our true nature and identity, and ultimately ourselves.

I do not think all homosexuals choose their orientation, but most alcoholics do not choose their bodily reaction to alcohol either.  Other personality disorders can be traced to involuntary biological problems.  This being the case, a person with a brain injury that leaves him susceptible to violence is still expected to control his behavior.  He may be tempted to violence, but society expects we control our instincts.  So long as we sin, we reject who we are.  I don't condemn homosexuals for their temptations, since I know my own weaknesses.  I do condemn those who say that we should act out on our impulses just because we did not choose them.

That's the absurdity of 'gay marriage.'



I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".
That all being said, yes, action on homsexual inclinations is a denial of one's self.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2009, 01:41:21 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2009, 01:44:46 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Well once we start living lives contrary to God's natural order, we quite often find ourselves dealing with lots of "barmy".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2009, 01:49:39 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Well once we start living lives contrary to God's natural order, we quite often find ourselves dealing with lots of "barmy".

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2009, 01:50:30 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Well once we start living lives contrary to God's natural order, we quite often find ourselves dealing with lots of "barmy".

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
What do you think I am judging?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2009, 01:54:10 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Well once we start living lives contrary to God's natural order, we quite often find ourselves dealing with lots of "barmy".

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
What do you think I am judging?

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that. I didn't think you were judging anything. I thought Father Giryus was arguing that effeminacy and homosexuality are inherently related, and he says you often see homosexuals behaving in what he sees as effeminate ways. But I don't think you can accurately predict someone's sexuality from their behaviour, and I think it's a bit offensive to suggest that effeminacy and homosexuality are linked. Actually, I think 'effeminacy' is a pretty dodgy, offensive concept. But none of that was directed at you.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2009, 01:55:28 PM »


I agree with most of what you have said Father. However, I just think that there are probably far too many homosexuals in the closet for us to determine whether or not most gay men behave more girlish or not. I would agree that those who are "out, loud, and proud" probably behave in a more girlish manner. However, what about the ones who act on their urges in secret, or the devout souls who remain chaste for the kingdom of God? We simply cannot quantify how many of these are "guyish" or "girlish".


I just don't see any reason why homosexuals would be likely to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. A good friend, who is gay (and not Christian, incidentally), once said to me:

'Why would I WANT my partner to behave like a woman? I'm attracted to MEN.' His bewilderment about summed it up for me.

All I can think of is the way that, back in the day, there was the concept of 'political lesbianism' (very weird), and a strange sort of alliance between pseudo-feminists and pseudo-lesbians led to the idea that for a woman to be actively 'feminine' (eg. by wearing lipstick) was somehow 'betraying the feminist/lesbian cause'. Time was when you could get stopped at the door of a gay club for dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, to have your lesbian 'credentials' questioned. To be honest, I think this is as barmy as it comes!
Well once we start living lives contrary to God's natural order, we quite often find ourselves dealing with lots of "barmy".

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
What do you think I am judging?

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that. I didn't think you were judging anything. I thought Father Giryus was arguing that effeminacy and homosexuality are inherently related, and he says you often see homosexuals behaving in what he sees as effeminate ways. But I don't think you can accurately predict someone's sexuality from their behaviour, and I think it's a bit offensive to suggest that effeminacy and homosexuality are linked. Actually, I think 'effeminacy' is a pretty dodgy, offensive concept. But none of that was directed at you.
Thanks for clarifying.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2009, 02:31:31 PM »

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
Well, you may not be able to be 100% sure, but the cover of a book does tend to tell a lot about its contents.

For example, the contents of the 'book' chooses the 'cover' (unless we are talking about extreme instances of poverty and disease).  We pick our clothes, hair style (if we still have hair to style), jewelry, tattoos, piercings, etc.  In most cases, an atheist will not wear a nun's habit (unless to a Halloween party), and a nun will not tattoo a gang logo on her arm.

Many stereotypes are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  That's how they came into being in the first place.  Whether we use them to do harm to others is an abuse of them.

Getting back to the topic of appearance and sexuality, there are a deceptively small percentage of heterosexual men who cross-dress (Eddy Izzard is presently their flag-carrier).  However, most cross-dressing is indicative of homosexuality in one of its troubling paradoxes as noted.

Homosexuality is full of paradoxes, which is why it is often so difficult to unravel.  We can also find plenty of exceptions to whatever rule we put in place, but the same is true of human psychology in general.  The fact that there are exceptions does not mean we must then do away with all manner of general rules and, yes, stereotypes.  We just need to always be cognizant of the exceptions.

As to the comparison of Sts. Sergius and Baccus to a (celibate) gay couple, I think it is absolutely rubbish to think that all close friendships must be homosexual.  Therefore, since a relationship of this type does not necessitate homosexuality, and the actual hagiography makes no mention of it, I think it is a stretch to make such a conclusion.

At any rate, I do admire those who do battle with and defeat the impulse to act on their temptations.  Those homosexuals who choose the path of holiness and take up their crosses are deserving of our respect and emulation rather than our scorn.


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2009, 02:50:22 PM »

But what I find odd about it is that this is exactly the same attitude that Father Giryus seems to have! You can't judge a book by its cover; you can't make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on personality traits and appearance.
Well, you may not be able to be 100% sure, but the cover of a book does tend to tell a lot about its contents.

For example, the contents of the 'book' chooses the 'cover' (unless we are talking about extreme instances of poverty and disease).  We pick our clothes, hair style (if we still have hair to style), jewelry, tattoos, piercings, etc.  In most cases, an atheist will not wear a nun's habit (unless to a Halloween party), and a nun will not tattoo a gang logo on her arm.

Many stereotypes are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  That's how they came into being in the first place.  Whether we use them to do harm to others is an abuse of them.

Getting back to the topic of appearance and sexuality, there are a deceptively small percentage of heterosexual men who cross-dress (Eddy Izzard is presently their flag-carrier).  However, most cross-dressing is indicative of homosexuality in one of its troubling paradoxes as noted.

I am 99% certain you are wrong here. I have heard it said many times that the majority of cross-dressing men are heterosexual, and whereas I know personally at least two heterosexual men who cross-dress, I have never once met a homosexual man who did. And I can think of upwards of 100 homosexuals I've come into regular contact with.

Quote


Homosexuality is full of paradoxes, which is why it is often so difficult to unravel.  We can also find plenty of exceptions to whatever rule we put in place, but the same is true of human psychology in general.  The fact that there are exceptions does not mean we must then do away with all manner of general rules and, yes, stereotypes.  We just need to always be cognizant of the exceptions.

As to the comparison of Sts. Sergius and Baccus to a (celibate) gay couple, I think it is absolutely rubbish to think that all close friendships must be homosexual.  Therefore, since a relationship of this type does not necessitate homosexuality, and the actual hagiography makes no mention of it, I think it is a stretch to make such a conclusion.


True. I totally agree with you here. It is absurd to pretend that close friendships are homosexual. It belittles the nature of friendship. I find it particularly annoying when people insist that David and Jonathan 'must have been gay'.

Quote
At any rate, I do admire those who do battle with and defeat the impulse to act on their temptations.  Those homosexuals who choose the path of holiness and take up their crosses are deserving of our respect and emulation rather than our scorn.

[/font][/size]


Sorry, but may I ask you again what you think constitutes 'effeminacy'? Or its equivalent in women? I mean specific examples of behaviour. And what's wrong with a man being 'effeminate'?
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2009, 03:01:16 PM »

Oops, double post.
^^ Wow! I completely missed the "thought provoking messages" that encouraged loyalty and love to the Ecumenical Throne on JN1034.....must have been that picture of my Lord, Jesus Christ, depicted as a       M O R B I D L Y    obese man while hanging on the cross FOR YOU AND ME, that distorted my vision.  No, maybe it was the dog with a bishop’s mitre.  No, maybe it was the rant about how the +MP was a thieving Commie.  No, maybe it was the rant suggesting that an elderly professor at St. Vlad’s was a murderer, which could incite violence against him or his family. No, maybe it was....................  

AlexanderOfBergamo,
Methinks the above is an exercise in extreme sarcasm.  But I'll let ms.hoorah speak definitively for herself.
Cleveland,
Sadly, no, these things are actually on this toxic site.  I am really unsure of why AlexanderOfBergamo bizarrely states I am accusing the +EP of creating this awful site.  Clearly, the +EP did not create this site and I never accused the +EP of this offense.  Very bizarre accusation!

The creators of this offensive filth placed what looks to be the +EP seal at the bottom of the page in addition to a gauge to show you that they are tracking or can track your IP number.  Be careful if you feel a need to visit this toilet.

You misinterpreted my intentions. My idea was to show that EVEN in the case the EP would err, there would be no problem for the survivor of the Orthodox Church, so even the existance of extremist groups such as that one can even be tolerated. Of course, I don't know anything of them, but reading how you hate their attitude and thoughts, it seems they must be really outside of the limits of tolerability. Anyway, pray for them and stop accusing them... the Church is made of many members, many of them defect from faith or have a distorted idea of the Gospel... but I don't think they should be, for example, attacked or expelled unless their doctrines come to be considered heretic by the Church (a thing, as it seems, has not yet happened).
I pray you to forgive my bad answer, don't want to be misunderstood.

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")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2009, 03:19:00 PM »

Dear Liz, I think that FatherGyrus might be using the word "effeminate" in the same meaning as it is mistranslated from the NT, in the list of those sins that don't "bring to the Kingdom of Heaven".
Quote
Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
The Greek word means "soft", an expression which indicated depraved men indulging in attitudes typically feminine. The term has been so largely applied that sometimes it did imply homosexuality, and at other times the (ab)use of jewelry, make-up or cross-dressing by men. In truth, a "soft" person could also be a man spending too much many in body care... actually, this vague meaning could be applied to half of our contemporary men on earth (look at men who passionately cure their aspect and sunbathe etc). So, it is an error to read this word out of its context... In Paul's times an effeminate attitude like the above might have been a symptome of homosexuality or something like that. Poor Paul, had he seen this generation in person he would have had a heart attack!

In Christ,   Alex

PS: The fact that the word "erastes" is used in the hagiography, and the torment of wearing female dresses which was imposed to them by the Emperor are to me a sufficient proof that Serge and Bacchus might have been more intimate then friends. Anyway I'm not pontificating, there' a total freedom of interpretation to the text. Also, I guess that their sentimental orientation doesn't affect their sanctity, but on the contrary should be taken as a valid example of a true Christian conduct. One thing is certain: no doctrine of "gay marriage" can be derived from that hagiography, no matter what modernists are saying about it. The Holy Ghost through the Church has always transmitted the same faith and codified it in the Canons for our spiritual edification. This puts the question outside the boundaries of doubt... we are certain that any sexual intercourse happens to destroy all relationship with God, and should thus be condemned for what it is.
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")
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2009, 03:20:56 PM »

I am 99% certain you are wrong here. I have heard it said many times that the majority of cross-dressing men are heterosexual, and whereas I know personally at least two heterosexual men who cross-dress, I have never once met a homosexual man who did. And I can think of upwards of 100 homosexuals I've come into regular contact with.
There are straight transexuals, gay transexuals and bi-transexuals just like non-transexuals. 

Is there any priest or deacon, on OCnet today, that is willing to answer the statements in reply #58?
Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2009, 04:51:09 PM »

Is there any priest or deacon, on OCnet today, that is willing to answer the statements in reply #58?
^^reply #57 not #58
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 04:52:38 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
elgreca262
Orthodox Life Coach Speaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2009, 05:01:22 PM »

I can't believe the debased conversations that are occupying the hearts and minds of people. The conversation has been reduced to the proclivity of individuals who cross dress? How is this relevant? It appears that hiding beneath the vanear of disapproving verbage I read here the thoughts of the morbidly curious. It is a sad state. Emerging and continuous issues of gender identity cannot be understated. Gender is the single most defining attribute of the person. The first proclamation made by midwives and doctors are "It's a ...(boy or girl). When confusion about ones gender identity or homoetrotic tendencies become apparent there is quite enough blame and shame to go around. I think we should be more diligent in broadening our acceptance of those seeking the Truth to include sinners. Imagine that, and by sinners I mean all sinners. Let's not hide gossip beneath the veil of intellectual discourse. Truth paired with leniency for all. Obscenity is not deligated only to the sexual arena. I think this topic is exhausted let's move on to more substantive matters.  I find bullying more offense and detrimental to the church then affection.
Logged

In His service,
angela
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2009, 05:28:18 PM »

I can't believe the debased conversations that are occupying the hearts and minds of people. The conversation has been reduced to the proclivity of individuals who cross dress? How is this relevant? It appears that hiding beneath the vanear of disapproving verbage I read here the thoughts of the morbidly curious. It is a sad state. Emerging and continuous issues of gender identity cannot be understated. Gender is the single most defining attribute of the person. The first proclamation made by midwives and doctors are "It's a ...(boy or girl). When confusion about ones gender identity or homoetrotic tendencies become apparent there is quite enough blame and shame to go around. I think we should be more diligent in broadening our acceptance of those seeking the Truth to include sinners. Imagine that, and by sinners I mean all sinners. Let's not hide gossip beneath the veil of intellectual discourse. Truth paired with leniency for all. Obscenity is not deligated only to the sexual arena. I think this topic is exhausted let's move on to more substantive matters.  I find bullying more offense and detrimental to the church then affection.

This is not gossip. Gender is not the most defining attribute of a person. To think so is contrary to our shared Christian faith. Of course we are all keen to accept and extend help to sinners of all kinds. That is not under question. But I think it is important to consider to what extent, and in what ways, attributes such as femininity are socially or religiously constructed, and what this might mean for the way we relate to one another. If you think the topic is exhausted, ignore it. It is really quite rude to offer no contribution bar censorious remarks, which you've not even bothered to spell-check, when some of us obviously consider this discussion interesting and important. Who are you to judge which of us needs help with these issues?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 05:29:01 PM by Liz » 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 #75 on: September 09, 2009, 06:02:56 PM »

Gender is not the most defining attribute of a person.

I agree. In fact, the notion that there are two human genders is, strictly speaking, wrong. There are androgines - people with poorly defined genders. They may have the karyotype XY and, hence, have masculine traits, but these traits may be very poorly defined, while there will be many feminine traits. Even more so in people with Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, etc.), who, again, do have some masculine traits dictaded by some genes in the Y chromosome, but they are the more "effeminate" the bigger number of the X chromosomes they carry. BTW, Kleinfelter's syndrome occurs rather frequently (~1 in 3000 male births, meaning there are millions of humans around us who are not quite male and not quite female), and people with this karyotype may be physically and intellectually healthy.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #76 on: September 09, 2009, 06:16:21 PM »

Gender is not the most defining attribute of a person.

I agree. In fact, the notion that there are two human genders is, strictly speaking, wrong. There are androgines - people with poorly defined genders. They may have the karyotype XY and, hence, have masculine traits, but these traits may be very poorly defined, while there will be many feminine traits. Even more so in people with Kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, etc.), who, again, do have some masculine traits dictaded by some genes in the Y chromosome, but they are the more "effeminate" the bigger number of the X chromosomes they carry. BTW, Kleinfelter's syndrome occurs rather frequently (~1 in 3000 male births, meaning there are millions of humans around us who are not quite male and not quite female), and people with this karyotype may be physically and intellectually healthy.


A good point. We can't ignore the fact that issues like this can and do have a bearing on how we construct and understand gender. And if we cannot properly understand gender and gender roles, how can we hope to understand sexuality?

I notice elgreca hasn't replied about her views on feminism. I have to admit I hadn't connected the two posts, nor had I noticed she was such a recent addition to the forum. I apologize if my tone has been more combative than it should have been. But I am still very interested to hear views on either of these subjects, whether they remain part of this thread on gay marriage, or whether anyone wants to discuss them elsewhere.

Liz.
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 #77 on: September 09, 2009, 06:59:27 PM »

A good point. We can't ignore the fact that issues like this can and do have a bearing on how we construct and understand gender. And if we cannot properly understand gender and gender roles, how can we hope to understand sexuality?

We are very far from such an understanding. We jump into conclusions based on the so-called "norm," or "normalcy," which is simply constatation that this or that happens more often than this or that. And according to this logic, tooth decay (karies) is norm, while healthy teeth is not norm, because the number of people on our planet who have karies is much bigger than the number of people who do not.
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,143


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #78 on: September 09, 2009, 08:25:10 PM »

A good point. We can't ignore the fact that issues like this can and do have a bearing on how we construct and understand gender. And if we cannot properly understand gender and gender roles, how can we hope to understand sexuality? 

We are very far from such an understanding. We jump into conclusions based on the so-called "norm," or "normalcy," which is simply constatation that this or that happens more often than this or that. And according to this logic, tooth decay (karies) is norm, while healthy teeth is not norm, because the number of people on our planet who have karies is much bigger than the number of people who do not. 

I don't know if that's a great example: tooth decay in the norm, since that is the natural state our mouths would be in without direct intervention.  Tooth health isn't normal - however, it is yet another example of humanity transcending its animal nature through its better qualities (discipline, ingenuity, perseverance, etc.).  In the world, the way things are now, sin is the norm we've allowed to occur; and sinlessness isn't normal - however, it is again an example of humanity transcending its fallen nature through its better qualities and God's divine help.

Of course, as I've argued in many places here, the problem is that we focus the discussion on a few 'hot-button' issues, and ignore the overall (like focusing on incisor decay, while neglecting the molars & canines) picture of sin.

How one self-identifies gender is ultimately between them and their Creator; a male can be very masculine and a greater sinner than a male who is very effeminate (especially if the former likes to beat up the latter).  Like everything else, as long as it isn't flying in the face of God's plan, then it's all about "how you use it" (the same thing we say about wealth, intelligence, strength, charisma, etc.).

How one is attracted is also between them and their creator.  The Church's position doesn't focus on the attraction, it focuses on when we take it and misuse it (lust, sex outside of marriage, etc.).  In this way, we should apply the teaching of the Church equally within our own disposition: if we think homosexuals should be counseled against sex, then we should do the same for heterosexuals.  If we want to shout about the evils of homosexual marriage, then we should do the same for heterosexual cohabitation.  If we want to hate people because they're sinners, we should hate all people. 

Of course then we'd find ourselves in the position of the townspeople who were going to stone the adulteress - realizing that we deserve stones thrown at us at least as much as the person(s) at whom we are directing our rage.

From our perspective, we'd be better able to minister to the maligned if we were to look at the overall picture of sin and realize that we should be just as maligned as they are.  Don't accept the sin, but don't destroy the sinner, unless one is prepared to be destroyed also.
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.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2009, 09:15:17 PM »

What is the type of sin called which distorts  a belief of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in an attempt to justify personal sins or others' sins of which one approves?  Is this a tiny, fissure sin only affecting one tooth or is it invasive osteosarcoma of the mandible which could endanger the entire “body” (of the Church) if allowed/encouraged/ignored and it spreads?  What treatment should be prescribed? 

No, I am not encouraging the excommunication of sinners (myself included).
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 09:24:17 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,143


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2009, 09:59:08 PM »

What is the type of sin called which distorts  a belief of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in an attempt to justify personal sins or others' sins of which one approves?  Is this a tiny, fissure sin only affecting one tooth or is it invasive osteosarcoma of the mandible which could endanger the entire “body” (of the Church) if allowed/encouraged/ignored and it spreads?  What treatment should be prescribed? 

No, I am not encouraging the excommunication of sinners (myself included).

I'm not catching what you're trying to say.  Honestly.  Is this directed to me, to others?
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.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #81 on: September 09, 2009, 10:05:57 PM »

What is the type of sin called which distorts  a belief of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in an attempt to justify personal sins or others' sins of which one approves?  Is this a tiny, fissure sin only affecting one tooth or is it invasive osteosarcoma of the mandible which could endanger the entire “body” (of the Church) if allowed/encouraged/ignored and it spreads?  What treatment should be prescribed? 

No, I am not encouraging the excommunication of sinners (myself included).

I'm not catching what you're trying to say.  Honestly.  Is this directed to me, to others?
I am disturbed about the material presented on the "offending site" JN1034. It is offensive in itself, but then it adds the +EP seal at the bottom.  There is other incorrect information on this thread which refers to Sts. Sergius and Bacchus.  This is the world's largest Orthodox Christian forum.  Should posts that present incorrect Orthodox teachings be allowed to go uncorrected on the world's largest Orthodox Christian forum?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 10:10:11 PM by ms.hoorah » 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 #82 on: September 09, 2009, 10:24:00 PM »

I don't know if that's a great example: tooth decay in the norm, since that is the natural state our mouths would be in without direct intervention.  Tooth health isn't normal - however, it is yet another example of humanity transcending its animal nature through its better qualities (discipline, ingenuity, perseverance, etc.).  In the world, the way things are now, sin is the norm we've allowed to occur; and sinlessness isn't normal - however, it is again an example of humanity transcending its fallen nature through its better qualities and God's divine help.

But in your chain of reasoning, great as it is, there is this word, "sin" - and what is it, when we are talking about genders and homosexuality and the like? When we are talking about hurting others, edifying ourselves on the expense of others - than there is no doubt, the transgression against the principle, "love your neighbor," is obvious. But when it is against what you are? what you are born as? Easy for those of us, like you and (possibly) me, to say that "sin" is what we are not and in this case, the "sinners" must "transcend" (what???) and exercise discipline (for what end???)

Logged

Love never fails.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #83 on: September 09, 2009, 11:26:45 PM »

Adelphopoiia according to the Secretary of the Greek Synod Committee on Legal and Canonical Matters, Fr. Evangelos K. Mantzouneas

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/eastern_orthodox/Church.of.Greece.on.adelphopoiia
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 11:29:31 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: September 10, 2009, 05:28:18 AM »

I have known a few Orthodox gays to claim that they are getting a very raw deal from the Church.  They claim that up until the 1800s the Rite for Brothermaking  (Bratotvorenie in Russian and Adelphopoiia in Greek) was an Orthodox marriage service for gay marriage.

They say that in the 1800s under the unfluence of the Catholic Church the Orthodox did away with this marriage rite.  (In my opinion, this mitigates against their contention- what influence could the Catholic Church have had on the Orthodox in the early 19th century!?)

Now I have always been taught that Brothermaking was simply what it says, and indeed I have participated in the rite in Serbia. 

Bit I want to fly a kite as they say and ask for opinions.    Would it be beneficial to gay Orthodox to re-instate it?  I don't mean as a marriage ceremony but as a brothermaking ceremony for males (and females) who want to make a commitment to one another. 

This could be re-instated irrespective whether it is for heterosexuals or homosexuals.  Could the great and amazing relationship of true and profound friendship find a liturgical expression once again, in the modern Church?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 05:38:53 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #85 on: September 10, 2009, 05:40:19 AM »

Adelphopoiia according to the Secretary of the Greek Synod Committee on Legal and Canonical Matters, Fr. Evangelos K. Mantzouneas

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/eastern_orthodox/Church.of.Greece.on.adelphopoiia

Thanks, ms. hoorah.  Somebody recently gave us a web link to Peter Moghila's Trebnik (Book of Needs) from the 17th century.  It contains the Slavonic text for Brothermaking.

May we have the link again please.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #86 on: September 10, 2009, 06:33:21 AM »

somewhere here we have a link to some article of a woman who had taken part in the ceremony (in Syria?) and was astonished about Boswell's claims.
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
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #87 on: September 10, 2009, 06:43:36 AM »

somewhere here we have a link to some article of a woman who had taken part in the ceremony (in Syria?) and was astonished about Boswell's claims.
^^Was it this article?

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html
After a Orthodox Church Sunday liturgy, the author of this article was joined as a "sister" to a very good friend.  They were not lesbians but very good friends. It was clearly not a marriage ceremony.

Many college sororities and fraternities also have "brother/sister" ceremonies.


« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 06:54:38 AM by ms.hoorah » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #88 on: September 10, 2009, 07:05:11 AM »

I have known a few Orthodox gays to claim that they are getting a very raw deal from the Church.  They claim that up until the 1800s the Rite for Brothermaking  (Bratotvorenie in Russian and Adelphopoiia in Greek) was an Orthodox marriage service for gay marriage.

They say that in the 1800s under the unfluence of the Catholic Church the Orthodox did away with this marriage rite.  (In my opinion, this mitigates against their contention- what influence could the Catholic Church have had on the Orthodox in the early 19th century!?)

Now I have always been taught that Brothermaking was simply what it says, and indeed I have participated in the rite in Serbia. 

Bit I want to fly a kite as they say and ask for opinions.    Would it be beneficial to gay Orthodox to re-instate it?  I don't mean as a marriage ceremony but as a brothermaking ceremony for males (and females) who want to make a commitment to one another. 

This could be re-instated irrespective whether it is for heterosexuals or homosexuals.  Could the great and amazing relationship of true and profound friendship find a liturgical expression once again, in the modern Church?


I think it could greatly benefit these couples, because:
1)It would be a recognition for homosexals that they're not alone, and that the Church is ready to welcome and help them living the Faith
2)It would be a way to control homosexuals better, so that once they "come out of the closet" they can be better assisted by the parish priest. This would also eliminate all clandestine relationships.
3)It would be a blessing, and thus a conferring of grace from the Church, an instrument of sanctification so that the couple might understand more correctly the specific purpose of their condition in God's plans.
4)It would be a way for a couple not to renounce to their love (which is always positive), while abandoning passion (which is always negative, especially when it can't be rightfully satisfied).

In Christ,   Alex
4)It would be
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")
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #89 on: September 10, 2009, 07:13:38 AM »

I have known a few Orthodox gays to claim that they are getting a very raw deal from the Church.  They claim that up until the 1800s the Rite for Brothermaking  (Bratotvorenie in Russian and Adelphopoiia in Greek) was an Orthodox marriage service for gay marriage.

They say that in the 1800s under the unfluence of the Catholic Church the Orthodox did away with this marriage rite.  (In my opinion, this mitigates against their contention- what influence could the Catholic Church have had on the Orthodox in the early 19th century!?)

Now I have always been taught that Brothermaking was simply what it says, and indeed I have participated in the rite in Serbia. 

Bit I want to fly a kite as they say and ask for opinions.    Would it be beneficial to gay Orthodox to re-instate it?  I don't mean as a marriage ceremony but as a brothermaking ceremony for males (and females) who want to make a commitment to one another. 

This could be re-instated irrespective whether it is for heterosexuals or homosexuals.  Could the great and amazing relationship of true and profound friendship find a liturgical expression once again, in the modern Church?


I think it could greatly benefit these couples, because:
1)It would be a recognition for homosexals that they're not alone, and that the Church is ready to welcome and help them living the Faith
2)It would be a way to control homosexuals better, so that once they "come out of the closet" they can be better assisted by the parish priest. This would also eliminate all clandestine relationships.
3)It would be a blessing, and thus a conferring of grace from the Church, an instrument of sanctification so that the couple might understand more correctly the specific purpose of their condition in God's plans.
4)It would be a way for a couple not to renounce to their love (which is always positive), while abandoning passion (which is always negative, especially when it can't be rightfully satisfied).

In Christ,   Alex
4)It would be

For what it's worth, I think extending the blessing is very important here. It must be so sad to fall in love, and then feel there must be a choice made between God and that new love - and you can love someone without needing a physical relationship with them.
Logged
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 0.213 seconds with 72 queries.