OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 11:26:11 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 24485 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2009, 09:39:18 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.
In addition, there are many ceremonies/celebrations in the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church where individuals wear crowns during or after church ceremonies/celebrations and they are NOT in a marriage ceremony.  For instance, in the Carpatho-Russian Church, girls wear lovely white dresses with crowns of flowers of their heads after they have completed their "learn about confession classes".  In the Catholic church, girls wear crowns on their heads during  their first Holy Communion.  Crowns in church services do not always = marriage ceremony.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 09:41:58 AM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2009, 10:23:20 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?

Do you think that this could be a slippery slope in the modern climate of the "gay rights" movement?
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2009, 10:36:23 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?

Do you think that this could be a slippery slope in the modern climate of the "gay rights" movement?

I guess it could just cause even more ill-feeling, if people mistook it for a first step in the direction the Anglican Church has taken. That would be a big difficulty.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #93 on: September 10, 2009, 10:42:55 AM »

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. 

Okay, I understand now.  In the manner presented, I thought your post was directed at the one I made just before it.

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?

Ideally, incorrect information can and should be corrected ASAP, whether we're the largest or smallest Orthodox Christian forum (in English).  However, and partially due to the size of this site,

1. Many people have become bored of refuting/discussing the same points over and over again.  
To wit, other occasions discussing the Brother-making (this isn't the larger "Homosexuality and Orthodoxy" list):

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18244.msg267309.html#msg267309
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8122.msg106574.html#msg106574

including this thread directed specifically at the subject of the venerable Saints Sergius and Bacchus:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9135.0.html

2. The right people don't always see the right threads at the right time - there are so many, that often people choose what subjects or subfora to focus on at various times.

3. We're imperfect, too, and thus miss opportunities that may be obvious to others.


And, finally, the topic of Homosexuality in general:


The topic of homosexuality has been discussed at length on OCnet in many threads. Below is a list of many of those threads directly dealing with the topic. Not only do we have many threads on the topic of homosexuality, we even have a thread which deals with the topic of the topic of homosexuality on Orthodox Forums!
Therefore, in the interests of moving the discussion forward rather than letting it go in circles with new threads being started which cover the same topic which older threads have already discussed, please find below for your convenience a list of links to those threads which discuss the issue of homosexuality.
Before posting on the subject, you are asked to please read through them. If you read these threads, you will also note that we have some posters on this forum who are homosexually oriented and have converted to Orthodoxy.
You will find the discussion which has led to this post being made here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9360.0.html, and you will find a similar post to this one from a Global Moderator here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11954.msg162266.html#msg162266
You are asked to please take all this into consideration before posting on the subject of homosexuality on this forum.


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7154.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10774.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5260.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11688.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5459.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11890.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11897.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3825.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,6577.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,48.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8458.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8122.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8068.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9156.0.html


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9360.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9330.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9297.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7531.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11954.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5780.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5780.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11322.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9135.0.html

(Mind you, this list is old! - Follow the tag "homosexuality" at the bottom, to see some more recent threads on the subject.)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 10:43:46 AM by cleveland » 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.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #94 on: September 10, 2009, 10:52:30 AM »

Quote
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.

Precisely. I can tell this as I assisted to the frustrations of many in this condition. They think that the Church works contrary to the evangelical ideal because she condemns homosexuality as a whole. The Church should open her arms to this weak people so that they might continue their love and suppress the entire sexual/passional part, sublimating (don't know whether this word actually exists, I'm Italianizing) their eros into a "monogamic agape" (sorry for this expression) with one's partner. In this context, those gays and lesbians who truly love God will accept the sacrifice of abandoning sexuality and have a chance to correct themselves by God's grace. Of course, this is still my persona opinion...

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #95 on: September 10, 2009, 11:36:27 AM »

Quote
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.

Precisely. I can tell this as I assisted to the frustrations of many in this condition. They think that the Church works contrary to the evangelical ideal because she condemns homosexuality as a whole. The Church should open her arms to this weak people so that they might continue their love and suppress the entire sexual/passional part, sublimating (don't know whether this word actually exists, I'm Italianizing) their eros into a "monogamic agape" (sorry for this expression) with one's partner. In this context, those gays and lesbians who truly love God will accept the sacrifice of abandoning sexuality and have a chance to correct themselves by God's grace. Of course, this is still my persona opinion...

In Christ,   Alex
Aside from those who have taken a vow of celibacy (i.e. monks), very few people understand what a sacrifice and struggle this is. The is incredible pain knowing that when you come home from work every night, you most certainly be alone, and not just one night but for the rest of your life. There is a grave pain in watching all of one's friends and family marry and have children, and know that that will never be you. There is immense pain in knowing that the support and friendship that comes from a romantic relationship (which is quite different from the support and friendship that comes from platonic friendships) will certainly never be yours. There is intense suffering in knowing that you did not choose celibacy, you did not recieve the monastic benefits of being a celibate person, but it was thrust upon you. If a person truely lives up to the Christian ideal and has homosexual inclinations, one need understand that such a person is living the life of Christ Crucified.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #96 on: September 10, 2009, 11:48:42 AM »

Quote
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.

Precisely. I can tell this as I assisted to the frustrations of many in this condition. They think that the Church works contrary to the evangelical ideal because she condemns homosexuality as a whole. The Church should open her arms to this weak people so that they might continue their love and suppress the entire sexual/passional part, sublimating (don't know whether this word actually exists, I'm Italianizing) their eros into a "monogamic agape" (sorry for this expression) with one's partner. In this context, those gays and lesbians who truly love God will accept the sacrifice of abandoning sexuality and have a chance to correct themselves by God's grace. Of course, this is still my persona opinion...

In Christ,   Alex
Aside from those who have taken a vow of celibacy (i.e. monks), very few people understand what a sacrifice and struggle this is. The is incredible pain knowing that when you come home from work every night, you most certainly be alone, and not just one night but for the rest of your life. There is a grave pain in watching all of one's friends and family marry and have children, and know that that will never be you. There is immense pain in knowing that the support and friendship that comes from a romantic relationship (which is quite different from the support and friendship that comes from platonic friendships) will certainly never be yours. There is intense suffering in knowing that you did not choose celibacy, you did not recieve the monastic benefits of being a celibate person, but it was thrust upon you. If a person truely lives up to the Christian ideal and has homosexual inclinations, one need understand that such a person is living the life of Christ Crucified.

Maybe I don't understand Alex correctly, but I thought he was suggesting something slightly different from what you describe. I'll let him confirm of deny, but it certainly seems to me that it might be a good thing if an Orthodox person who was homosexual could receive support for continuing in a celibate, but not platonic, relationship. As I understand it, there is actually no reason why the Orthodox Church should condemn a romantic (in the sense that it is a bond of love that two people reserve for each other) relationship between two men, or two women, as long as that relationship did not lead them to lust or to act upon lust. I guess if you are a devout Orthodox, and homosexual, this might be the best you could hope for without going against your religious belief.

But I agree with you that this life would be terribly hard and painful.

(Btw, Alexander, sublimating is a word.  Smiley )
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 11:49:27 AM 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 #97 on: September 10, 2009, 12:20:22 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct? Today, of course, our knowledge about various mental disturbances is so much bigger than it used to be. And the Church grants Christian burial to those who ended their lives being in a state of depression.

Now... can't we imagine, just for a brief moment, that one day the Church will SIMILARLY change Her position of homosexuality and gay marriage? Gay people can be perfectly, blissfully happy in their sexual union, and they can be as devoted to each other as heterosexuals, and they can be absolutely monogamous (Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas lived together virtually all of their lives and died in each other's arms when they both were very old). If we all agree that homosexuality is not a choice of a particular behavior but a variant of the human nature (like androginy), can this move the Church to change Her position?
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #98 on: September 10, 2009, 12:38:08 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct? Today, of course, our knowledge about various mental disturbances is so much bigger than it used to be. And the Church grants Christian burial to those who ended their lives being in a state of depression.

Now... can't we imagine, just for a brief moment, that one day the Church will SIMILARLY change Her position of homosexuality and gay marriage? Gay people can be perfectly, blissfully happy in their sexual union, and they can be as devoted to each other as heterosexuals, and they can be absolutely monogamous (Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas lived together virtually all of their lives and died in each other's arms when they both were very old). If we all agree that homosexuality is not a choice of a particular behavior but a variant of the human nature (like androginy), can this move the Church to change Her position?

Well said, and courageously said. Thank you.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #99 on: September 10, 2009, 12:39:43 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct?

We have no way of positively or negatively answering your question: the data just doesn't exist.  If you want to base the argument's (that follows) possibility of success on a presupposition that is shaky at best (that old way = no burial for suicide, new way = depends on mental state), then do so at your own (rhetorical) peril.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 12:46:44 PM by cleveland » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #100 on: September 10, 2009, 12:48:34 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct?

We have no way of positively or negatively answering your question: the data just doesn't exist.  If you want to base the argument that follows on a presupposition that is shaky at best (that old way = no burial for suicide, new way = depends on mental state), then do so at your own (rhetorical) peril.

Sorry, Cleveland, I do not understand what you are saying. Here is my argument, again: the Church loves all people, including homosexuals, but She considers homosexuality to be abnormal. This approach is, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), based on traditional beliefs of people who knew very little about biology of man, genes, chromosomes, neurons,  work of the brain (which is the main sexual organ:)). In former times, based on similarly limited knowledge of human biology, the Church refused burial to suicide victims. Now, She has changed Her position because of the expansion of the knowledge. CAN this also happen for the attitude of the Church to homosexuality? I am not asking whether it WILL happen - rather, is it possible? Yes, or no? It's not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know people's opinions...
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #101 on: September 10, 2009, 12:54:22 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct?

We have no way of positively or negatively answering your question: the data just doesn't exist.  If you want to base the argument that follows on a presupposition that is shaky at best (that old way = no burial for suicide, new way = depends on mental state), then do so at your own (rhetorical) peril.

Sorry, Cleveland, I do not understand what you are saying. Here is my argument, again: the Church loves all people, including homosexuals, but She considers homosexuality to be abnormal. This approach is, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), based on traditional beliefs of people who knew very little about biology of man, genes, chromosomes, neurons,  work of the brain (which is the main sexual organ:)). In former times, based on similarly limited knowledge of human biology, the Church refused burial to suicide victims. Now, She has changed Her position because of the expansion of the knowledge. CAN this also happen for the attitude of the Church to homosexuality? I am not asking whether it WILL happen - rather, is it possible? Yes, or no? It's not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know people's opinions...

I would like to believe it could happen, as you know. But the Church doesn't have to believe something is abnormal in order to condemn it, I don't think. She certainly doesn't use biological normality as a guide to best practice - monasticism isn't exactly a 'normal' way of life, after all.
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 #102 on: September 10, 2009, 01:17:37 PM »

I really hate to flog the dead horse of homosexuality, but I've been wondering, lately... Look, in previous centuries, when nothing was known about serotonin, brain synapses, etc., suicide was universally condemned by the Church as a terrible sin, and people who committed it were always refused Church burial - correct?

We have no way of positively or negatively answering your question: the data just doesn't exist.  If you want to base the argument that follows on a presupposition that is shaky at best (that old way = no burial for suicide, new way = depends on mental state), then do so at your own (rhetorical) peril.

Sorry, Cleveland, I do not understand what you are saying. Here is my argument, again: the Church loves all people, including homosexuals, but She considers homosexuality to be abnormal. This approach is, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), based on traditional beliefs of people who knew very little about biology of man, genes, chromosomes, neurons,  work of the brain (which is the main sexual organ:)). In former times, based on similarly limited knowledge of human biology, the Church refused burial to suicide victims. Now, She has changed Her position because of the expansion of the knowledge. CAN this also happen for the attitude of the Church to homosexuality? I am not asking whether it WILL happen - rather, is it possible? Yes, or no? It's not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know people's opinions...

I would like to believe it could happen, as you know. But the Church doesn't have to believe something is abnormal in order to condemn it, I don't think. She certainly doesn't use biological normality as a guide to best practice - monasticism isn't exactly a 'normal' way of life, after all.

I agree. Monasticism is not natural, it is "supernatural." But one chooses to become or not to become a monk, and Christ said that only those who are ABLE to accept monasticism should accept it. One, however, does not choose to be a homosexual, and, apparently, not all homosexuals are able to be celibate...
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 01:17:58 PM by Heorhij » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #103 on: September 10, 2009, 01:26:30 PM »

Sorry, Cleveland, I do not understand what you are saying. Here is my argument, again: the Church loves all people, including homosexuals, but She considers homosexuality to be abnormal. This approach is, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), based on traditional beliefs of people who knew very little about biology of man, genes, chromosomes, neurons,  work of the brain (which is the main sexual organ:)). In former times, based on similarly limited knowledge of human biology, the Church refused burial to suicide victims. Now, She has changed Her position because of the expansion of the knowledge. CAN this also happen for the attitude of the Church to homosexuality? I am not asking whether it WILL happen - rather, is it possible? Yes, or no? It's not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know people's opinions... 

I don't think the Church has a position on whether or not homosexuality is abnormal; only homosexual sex (which, mind you, is sex outside of marriage and thus falls under the same condemnation as adultery, fornication, etc.). 

Beyond that point, the Church will do whatever the Spirit leads it to do, whatever Christ directs it to do.  All things are possible in Christ.  As to whether it will happen, I don't know - if it is good, it will, and if not, it won't.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #104 on: September 10, 2009, 01:33:51 PM »

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

So, what - they're just animals and cannot control themselves?  That's worse than homophobia!  At least homophobes admit that homosexuals are human beings!  Humanity's best moments, biggest strides, highest achievements have come because & when we exercise control: control to keep anger in check and not resort to violence; control to sit still and farm, rather than roam and hunt; control to wash, brush teeth, clean and sanitize, rather than live in our own natural muck; control to work rather than lounge; control to sacrifice oneself for the good of others.  Don't assert something that is impossible to prove (how unscientific of you!), that not all homosexuals are able to be celibate - you don't know that!  Just because people don't try, doesn't mean they are unable.

We'll find the genetic trigger for addictive behavior, and then what?  Addiction is o.k. because it's part of the natural order?  Who cares if they're addicted to pot, or sex, or something else that isn't necessarily going to kill them in 20 years?  Or are those people going to have to transcend the most base aspects of their being (addiction), and rise up to be something more - theosis is the goal, not the option or the afterthought.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 01:34:18 PM by cleveland » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #105 on: September 10, 2009, 01:35:37 PM »

Sorry, Cleveland, I do not understand what you are saying. Here is my argument, again: the Church loves all people, including homosexuals, but She considers homosexuality to be abnormal. This approach is, I assume (correct me if I am wrong), based on traditional beliefs of people who knew very little about biology of man, genes, chromosomes, neurons,  work of the brain (which is the main sexual organ:)). In former times, based on similarly limited knowledge of human biology, the Church refused burial to suicide victims. Now, She has changed Her position because of the expansion of the knowledge. CAN this also happen for the attitude of the Church to homosexuality? I am not asking whether it WILL happen - rather, is it possible? Yes, or no? It's not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know people's opinions... 

I don't think the Church has a position on whether or not homosexuality is abnormal; only homosexual sex (which, mind you, is sex outside of marriage and thus falls under the same condemnation as adultery, fornication, etc.). 

But the Church does not recognize homosexual marriage exactly because She believes that the only "normal" (or "natural") sex is between a man and a woman, correct? That's what the GOA doctrinal web page states:

"The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has been expressed by synodicals, canons and patristic pronouncements beginning with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. Thus, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God's ordinance." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

Beyond that point, the Church will do whatever the Spirit leads it to do, whatever Christ directs it to do.  All things are possible in Christ.  As to whether it will happen, I don't know - if it is good, it will, and if not, it won't.

Yes. But I somehow feel that I should help the Church. I am the Church, too. And I, as a biologist, simply know that the GOA statement I quoted above is based on... well, let me put it bluntly, ignorance...
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #106 on: September 10, 2009, 01:37:07 PM »

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

So, what - they're just animals and cannot control themselves?

No. They are humans who are forced by others to control themselves where these others do not have to.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #107 on: September 10, 2009, 01:38:56 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. 

Okay, I understand now.  In the manner presented, I thought your post was directed at the one I made just before it.

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?

Ideally, incorrect information can and should be corrected ASAP, whether we're the largest or smallest Orthodox Christian forum (in English).  However, and partially due to the size of this site,

1. Many people have become bored of refuting/discussing the same points over and over again.  
To wit, other occasions discussing the Brother-making (this isn't the larger "Homosexuality and Orthodoxy" list):

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18244.msg267309.html#msg267309
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8122.msg106574.html#msg106574

including this thread directed specifically at the subject of the venerable Saints Sergius and Bacchus:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9135.0.html

2. The right people don't always see the right threads at the right time - there are so many, that often people choose what subjects or subfora to focus on at various times.

3. We're imperfect, too, and thus miss opportunities that may be obvious to others.
I understand completely and ask for forgiveness if I offended you.

I know that you realize that JN1034 is not a small joke. I post more on this topic in case others do not.

JN1034 posts on blogs that are read internationally.   They clearly list their web address so many others can be lured into reading their lies (some of which may incite violence against priests) and distortion of the Orthodox Christian faith. I have witness their web address posted on the Huffington Post which is listed as the #1 blog.  In one month, October of 2008, the Huffington Post had 5,000,000 visitors.

By placing an imitation seal of His All Holiness, +BARTHOLOMEW I  at the bottom of the page, JN1034 is giving  the +EP and all Orthodox Christians, a virtual slap in the face.  Those who may be lacking in Orthodox Christian beliefs/knowledge (many Huffington Post readers) may believe that this offensive site reflects the beliefs of the +EP or is endorsed by  +EP because his seal is on the page.



Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #108 on: September 10, 2009, 01:41:59 PM »

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

So, what - they're just animals and cannot control themselves?  That's worse than homophobia!


I didn't interpret what Heorhji said the way you did, but nevertheless - depends on the homophobia. A homosexual boy in Ireland was crucified on a goalpost and left to die a few years ago - not much is worse than that. But I agree we shouldn't think homosexuals simply can't control themselves.

Quote

 At least homophobes admit that homosexuals are human beings!  Humanity's best moments, biggest strides, highest achievements have come because & when we exercise control: control to keep anger in check and not resort to violence; control to sit still and farm, rather than roam and hunt; control to wash, brush teeth, clean and sanitize, rather than live in our own natural muck; control to work rather than lounge; control to sacrifice oneself for the good of others.  Don't assert something that is impossible to prove (how unscientific of you!), that not all homosexuals are able to be celibate - you don't know that!  Just because people don't try, doesn't mean they are unable.


With respect, I think a lot of people do try very hard.

Quote
We'll find the genetic trigger for addictive behavior, and then what?  Addiction is o.k. because it's part of the natural order?  Who cares if they're addicted to pot, or sex, or something else that isn't necessarily going to kill them in 20 years?  Or are those people going to have to transcend the most base aspects of their being (addiction), and rise up to be something more - theosis is the goal, not the option or the afterthought.
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 #109 on: September 10, 2009, 01:50:55 PM »

I agree we shouldn't think homosexuals simply can't control themselves.

Everyone should control him- or herself. I should control myself. But here, I see yet another example of a circular logic. Homosexuals cannot marry because sex between a man and a man is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it is extramarital.

Or this: the purpose of marriage is not self-gratification but theosis. Homosexuals cannot achieve theosis being in a marital union, so all they do in their sex lives is gratify themselves. But why cannot they achieve theosis in a lifelong monogamous sexual union? Because they can't. They are homosexuals.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 01:51:09 PM by Heorhij » Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #110 on: September 10, 2009, 02:05:05 PM »

So, Heorhji, do I take it you'd be in favour of the Church deciding to allow homosexual unions of some sexual kind? Or are you merely speculating on the whys and wherefores? PM me if you'd rather.

Liz
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #111 on: September 10, 2009, 02:18:29 PM »

I agree we shouldn't think homosexuals simply can't control themselves.

Everyone should control him- or herself. I should control myself. But here, I see yet another example of a circular logic. Homosexuals cannot marry because sex between a man and a man is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it is extramarital.

Or this: the purpose of marriage is not self-gratification but theosis. Homosexuals cannot achieve theosis being in a marital union, so all they do in their sex lives is gratify themselves. But why cannot they achieve theosis in a lifelong monogamous sexual union? Because they can't. They are homosexuals.

I don't think that its a circular arguement. Homosexuals are not refused marriage "just because". They are refused because homosexuality is not viewed as part of God's natural arrangement but is rather a corruption of the natural. Indeed, I understand that Homosexual Celibate life is extremely difficult, but I do not for a second pretend that an active homosexual life is healthy, spiritually, physically, or psychologically. It would be better to live the painful celibate life than to engage in the dangers (both natural and supernatural) of aan active homosexual life.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 10, 2009, 02:19:01 PM »

So, Heorhji, do I take it you'd be in favour of the Church deciding to allow homosexual unions of some sexual kind? Or are you merely speculating on the whys and wherefores? PM me if you'd rather.

Liz

Yes, actually, I would love to see my Church overcome age-old prejudices and bless homosexual marriage.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #113 on: September 10, 2009, 02:22:04 PM »

I don't think that its a circular arguement. Homosexuals are not refused marriage "just because". They are refused because homosexuality is not viewed as part of God's natural arrangement but is rather a corruption of the natural.

But look what Cleveland wrote. He says that he does not think the Church calls homosexuality an anomaly; he says that rather, the Church condemns homosexual sex because it is extramarital. Cleveland, correct me if I am wrong?

Indeed, I understand that Homosexual Celibate life is extremely difficult, but I do not for a second pretend that an active homosexual life is healthy, spiritually, physically, or psychologically. It would be better to live the painful celibate life than to engage in the dangers (both natural and supernatural) of aan active homosexual life.

But you believe that active homosexual life (even if we are talking about monogamous lifelong union of two people) is UNhealthy... why? Based on what observations?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #114 on: September 10, 2009, 02:30:00 PM »



But look what Cleveland wrote. He says that he does not think the Church calls homosexuality an anomaly; he says that rather, the Church condemns homosexual sex because it is extramarital. Cleveland, correct me if I am wrong?
But I think you are missing the next step in the arguement that I believe Clebeland is assuming and I am proposing for you evaluation.
Its not just extramarital for some arbitrary reason. It is not blessed by a Christian marriage because it is an overturning of the natural order.
But you believe that active homosexual life (even if we are talking about monogamous lifelong union of two people) is UNhealthy... why? Based on what observations?

I believe that this is unhealthy for several reasons. First, people in such a life style have higher rates of suicide, infidelity (even in so called monogomous unions), promiscuity, drug abuse, STDs etc. etc. etc. Second, it is unhealthy for spiritual reasons, in that a person is living a life in complete contradiction to God's natural odering of the universe. Third, personal experience and anecodotal evidence has supported my position.
Even in "monogomous" homosexual unions you see these same problems. There many sexual acts that are seen as normal in "monogomous" homsexual relationships that any Christian would view as repulsive. These relationships tend towards these problems because they are inherantly disordered.
Love would urge me to strongly recommend against engaging in a homosexul life style for any person who is considering it. I would want to spare that person the pain.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 02:31:40 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #115 on: September 10, 2009, 02:38:14 PM »



But look what Cleveland wrote. He says that he does not think the Church calls homosexuality an anomaly; he says that rather, the Church condemns homosexual sex because it is extramarital. Cleveland, correct me if I am wrong?
But I think you are missing the next step in the arguement that I believe Clebeland is assuming and I am proposing for you evaluation.
Its not just extramarital for some arbitrary reason. It is not blessed by a Christian marriage because it is an overturning of the natural order.
But you believe that active homosexual life (even if we are talking about monogamous lifelong union of two people) is UNhealthy... why? Based on what observations?

I believe that this is unhealthy for several reasons. First, people in such a life style have higher rates of suicide, infidelity (even in so called monogomous unions), promiscuity, drug abuse, STDs etc. etc. etc. Second, it is unhealthy for spiritual reasons, in that a person is living a life in complete contradiction to God's natural odering of the universe. Third, personal experience and anecodotal evidence has supported my position.
Even in "monogomous" homosexual unions you see these same problems. There many sexual acts that are seen as normal in "monogomous" homsexual relationships that any Christian would view as repulsive. These relationships tend towards these problems because they are inherantly disordered.
Love would urge me to strongly recommend against engaging in a homosexul life style for any person who is considering it. I would want to spare that person the pain.


I think this is a mixture of propaganda and the sad result of stigmatizing an aspect of human behaviour. One could equally well apply the list of 'unhealthy' experiences you list to, say, Af

I would observe - and I hope no one minds me saying this - that most of the acts in homosexual relationships can also be part of heterosexual relationships. Kisses? Hugs? And if you think I am being willfully innocent here, all the sexual acts between women.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #116 on: September 10, 2009, 02:39:05 PM »

So, Heorhji, do I take it you'd be in favour of the Church deciding to allow homosexual unions of some sexual kind? Or are you merely speculating on the whys and wherefores? PM me if you'd rather.

Liz

Yes, actually, I would love to see my Church overcome age-old prejudices and bless homosexual marriage.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as patronizing or disbelieving. I was just curious.
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 #117 on: September 10, 2009, 02:40:10 PM »

I believe that this is unhealthy for several reasons. First, people in such a life style have higher rates of suicide, infidelity (even in so called monogomous unions), promiscuity, drug abuse, STDs etc. etc. etc.

Is there really a solid statistical proof that monogamous homosexual couples are mole likely to be unfaithful to their partners than monogamous heterosexual couples? And suicide, drug abuse, etc. - aren't these sad things be a lot more likely to happen in groups of people who are looked down at as "abomination," etc.?

Second, it is unhealthy for spiritual reasons, in that a person is living a life in complete contradiction to God's natural odering of the universe.

I wish I could be so confident, precisely knowing God's "natural ordering of the universe..."

Third, personal experience and anecodotal evidence has supported my position. Even in "monogomous" homosexual unions you see these same problems. There many sexual acts that are seen as normal in "monogomous" homsexual relationships that any Christian would view as repulsive. These relationships tend towards these problems because they are inherantly disordered.

I think people who are homosexual and who engage in active sex simply feel guilty because they hear the message from the Church, and are afraid, and devastated, neurotized. That's THE reason, and not any kind of "un-natural-ness" of homosexual behavior.

That said, I would like to stress that I do not wish to encourage anyone to go against the teachings of the Church. I only want Her to modify some of Her teachings, just like She did modify Her teachings on suicide. And I, as a person who knows some biology and human physiology, am willing to do everything I can to make that happen.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 02:41:20 PM by Heorhij » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #118 on: September 10, 2009, 02:53:39 PM »



Is there really a solid statistical proof that monogamous homosexual couples are mole likely to be unfaithful to their partners than monogamous heterosexual couples? And suicide, drug abuse, etc. - aren't these sad things be a lot more likely to happen in groups of people who are looked down at as "abomination," etc.?
Yes there is statistical proof. And I will dig it up for you this week. Also, even secular psychology text books from liberal uinversities discuss the inherent problems in homosexual unions. For example, my best friend's counseling course at the University of New Mexico (the liberal berlkley of the southwest) used a text book that discussed how studies have shown that homosexual men are less likely to be able to establish Love (defined as devotion to a person in spite of their faults, while not ignoring those faults) and were much more likely to form relationships based on infatuation (defined as that "puppy" love where you just pretend that the other person has not faults. This immaturity in romantic relatinshiops is a definite sign of the problems of homosexual unions.
And, no I don't just think that its a problem of prejudice. It clearly is not natural. I mean look at the design of our bodies.

I wish I could be so confident, precisely knowing God's "natural ordering of the universe..."
I think that the design of our bodies is compeling evidence that God did intend for heterosexual unions but not for homosexual ones.

I think people who are homosexual and who engage in active sex simply feel guilty because they hear the message from the Church, and are afraid, and devastated, neurotized. That's THE reason, and not any kind of "un-natural-ness" of homosexual behavior.
Again, I present the design of our bodies and the teachings of the holy scriptures.
That said, I would like to stress that I do not wish to encourage anyone to go against the teachings of the Church. I only want Her to modify some of Her teachings, just like She did modify Her teachings on suicide. And I, as a person who knows some biology and human physiology, am willing to do everything I can to make that happen.
Although I am not Eastern Orthodox, I highly doubt that the EO Church has changed its position on suicide. I think she still teaches that Suicide is gravely sinful. However, I would wager that she recognizes differing levels of culpability with regard to the act itseld, depending on the psychological state of the person. The EO Church may be emphasizing mercy more now in respect to suicide, but I don't believe she has changed.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #119 on: September 10, 2009, 02:54:37 PM »



But look what Cleveland wrote. He says that he does not think the Church calls homosexuality an anomaly; he says that rather, the Church condemns homosexual sex because it is extramarital. Cleveland, correct me if I am wrong?
But I think you are missing the next step in the arguement that I believe Clebeland is assuming and I am proposing for you evaluation.
Its not just extramarital for some arbitrary reason. It is not blessed by a Christian marriage because it is an overturning of the natural order.
But you believe that active homosexual life (even if we are talking about monogamous lifelong union of two people) is UNhealthy... why? Based on what observations?

I believe that this is unhealthy for several reasons. First, people in such a life style have higher rates of suicide, infidelity (even in so called monogomous unions), promiscuity, drug abuse, STDs etc. etc. etc. Second, it is unhealthy for spiritual reasons, in that a person is living a life in complete contradiction to God's natural odering of the universe. Third, personal experience and anecodotal evidence has supported my position.
Even in "monogomous" homosexual unions you see these same problems. There many sexual acts that are seen as normal in "monogomous" homsexual relationships that any Christian would view as repulsive. These relationships tend towards these problems because they are inherantly disordered.
Love would urge me to strongly recommend against engaging in a homosexul life style for any person who is considering it. I would want to spare that person the pain.


I think this is a mixture of propaganda and the sad result of stigmatizing an aspect of human behaviour. One could equally well apply the list of 'unhealthy' experiences you list to, say, Af

I would observe - and I hope no one minds me saying this - that most of the acts in homosexual relationships can also be part of heterosexual relationships. Kisses? Hugs? And if you think I am being willfully innocent here, all the sexual acts between women.
However, when put in a romantic context these acts are ordered towards a different.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #120 on: September 10, 2009, 03:10:59 PM »

Yes. But I somehow feel that I should help the Church. I am the Church, too. And I, as a biologist, simply know that the GOA statement I quoted above is based on... well, let me put it bluntly, ignorance...  

Physician, heal thyself.

Will your input change the Church's opinion of same-gender sexual activity from being "it's abnormal" to "it's normal?"  Because all science can demonstrate is that same-sex attraction is often "normal" for the person; but that is no statement to the sexual activity itself.  Well?

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

So, what - they're just animals and cannot control themselves?

No. They are humans who are forced by others to control themselves where these others do not have to.

They're not forced - anyone can do whatever they want.  All the Church says is "the way that has been revealed to us is chastity for those who cannot get married in the Church."  If they choose to not follow that, it's fine - but that will be part of their conversation with God.  I do not presume to know how that will turn out, which is why I don't judge people for their sins, and I hope they don't judge me for mine.

However, your statement was "not all homosexuals are able to be celibate."  You are making a positive affirmation that there are homosexuals that are not capable of being celibate, limiting their ability to control what is most base in them (lust, regardless of direction), which I find insulting to any human being because it makes them less than human.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #121 on: September 10, 2009, 03:16:17 PM »

But look what Cleveland wrote. He says that he does not think the Church calls homosexuality an anomaly; he says that rather, the Church condemns homosexual sex because it is extramarital. Cleveland, correct me if I am wrong?

But I think you are missing the next step in the arguement that I believe Clebeland is assuming and I am proposing for you evaluation. Its not just extramarital for some arbitrary reason. It is not blessed by a Christian marriage because it is an overturning of the natural order. 

Exactly.  My statement of "homosexual sex = extramarrital sex which is why it is condemned" doesn't get into the implied reason as to why homosexual sex /= possible marital sex, which I allude to and you state openly: while attraction to the same gender may indeed be natural for some, I have yet to see why sexual activity between members of the same gender is "natural" - the only reason presented is because the attraction is present and the activity satisfies the attraction, which does not go to the natural or un-natural state of the action per se.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #122 on: September 10, 2009, 03:16:28 PM »



Is there really a solid statistical proof that monogamous homosexual couples are mole likely to be unfaithful to their partners than monogamous heterosexual couples? And suicide, drug abuse, etc. - aren't these sad things be a lot more likely to happen in groups of people who are looked down at as "abomination," etc.?
Yes there is statistical proof. And I will dig it up for you this week. Also, even secular psychology text books from liberal uinversities discuss the inherent problems in homosexual unions. For example, my best friend's counseling course at the University of New Mexico (the liberal berlkley of the southwest) used a text book that discussed how studies have shown that homosexual men are less likely to be able to establish Love (defined as devotion to a person in spite of their faults, while not ignoring those faults) and were much more likely to form relationships based on infatuation (defined as that "puppy" love where you just pretend that the other person has not faults. This immaturity in romantic relatinshiops is a definite sign of the problems of homosexual unions.


The point has been made that homosexual relationships are made in a society that still, by and large, condemns them. Psychology will also tell you that plenty of Indian women have insecurity issues about the paleness of their skin, because in India a 'wheatish' (ie. pale) complexion is still a prime mark of 'beauty'. This does not mean that Indian women are inherently insecure, or vain, or preoccupied by their skin colour - it only tells you how they are affected by society.


Quote
And, no I don't just think that its a problem of prejudice. It clearly is not natural. I mean look at the design of our bodies.


Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a rubbish argument. Homosexual sex is both possible, and (reportedly) physically gratifying. Indeed, as I have said before, there is little or nothing bar the gender of participants to distinguish lesbian sex from acts within normal heterosexual relationships. If you refer to our reproductive capacities, go look in the threads Cleveland linked to. I bet there's one that asks you to consider the case for barren women or infertile men having marital relations.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #123 on: September 10, 2009, 03:21:11 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This guy agrees with Father Serpahim Rose conserning a homosexual life style : "I was in Hell. I know what Hell is."
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 03:22:05 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #124 on: September 10, 2009, 03:29:44 PM »



Is there really a solid statistical proof that monogamous homosexual couples are mole likely to be unfaithful to their partners than monogamous heterosexual couples? And suicide, drug abuse, etc. - aren't these sad things be a lot more likely to happen in groups of people who are looked down at as "abomination," etc.?
Yes there is statistical proof. And I will dig it up for you this week. Also, even secular psychology text books from liberal uinversities discuss the inherent problems in homosexual unions. For example, my best friend's counseling course at the University of New Mexico (the liberal berlkley of the southwest) used a text book that discussed how studies have shown that homosexual men are less likely to be able to establish Love (defined as devotion to a person in spite of their faults, while not ignoring those faults) and were much more likely to form relationships based on infatuation (defined as that "puppy" love where you just pretend that the other person has not faults. This immaturity in romantic relatinshiops is a definite sign of the problems of homosexual unions.


The point has been made that homosexual relationships are made in a society that still, by and large, condemns them. Psychology will also tell you that plenty of Indian women have insecurity issues about the paleness of their skin, because in India a 'wheatish' (ie. pale) complexion is still a prime mark of 'beauty'. This does not mean that Indian women are inherently insecure, or vain, or preoccupied by their skin colour - it only tells you how they are affected by society.


Quote
And, no I don't just think that its a problem of prejudice. It clearly is not natural. I mean look at the design of our bodies.


Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a rubbish argument. Homosexual sex is both possible, and (reportedly) physically gratifying. Indeed, as I have said before, there is little or nothing bar the gender of participants to distinguish lesbian sex from acts within normal heterosexual relationships. If you refer to our reproductive capacities, go look in the threads Cleveland linked to. I bet there's one that asks you to consider the case for barren women or infertile men having marital relations.


Yes homosexuality is possible. But so is putting my finger in an electris socket. Just beacuse something is possible does not mean that it is good for you nor that it is an ordered act.
Yes, man can have sex with a man. But the question is, did male genitalia and excritory organs evolve for that purpose? The answer is a resounding "no". They evovled to function properly with the female anatomy, and this is just pure science.

As for barren women, there is no problem here because they are still using their anatomy for the intended purpose: namely, sexual activity with a man. Again, the organs evolved (were created for that purpose).

Let me be blunt with you. Homosexual sex is difficult to pull off physically because the parts weren't designed for that purpose.

Finally, promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for different reasons and thus I would apply a completely different arguement to the problems of adultery or fornication.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #125 on: September 10, 2009, 03:30:55 PM »

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a rubbish argument.

This is an entire argument about what is natural or un-natural, so why don't you prove first, and then claim as rubbish.

Homosexual sex is both possible, and (reportedly) physically gratifying.

The Church isn't concerned with physically gratifying activity - we'd encourage opiate use if we were.  We're in the business of getting people united with their Savior, and of building the kinds of relationships He wants us to use to get to that point.

If you refer to our reproductive capacities, go look in the threads Cleveland linked to. I bet there's one that asks you to consider the case for barren women or infertile men having marital relations.  

A thorough study of Christian history will provide you with plenty of examples to support the following: there is no such thing as absolute barrenness.  Plenty of women have been barren, and through prayer and God's grace have enjoyed Childbirth.  It is a reversible condition - homosexual sex's natural barrenness is not, thanks to the natural order.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #126 on: September 10, 2009, 03:34:02 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #127 on: September 10, 2009, 03:37:50 PM »



Is there really a solid statistical proof that monogamous homosexual couples are mole likely to be unfaithful to their partners than monogamous heterosexual couples? And suicide, drug abuse, etc. - aren't these sad things be a lot more likely to happen in groups of people who are looked down at as "abomination," etc.?
Yes there is statistical proof. And I will dig it up for you this week. Also, even secular psychology text books from liberal uinversities discuss the inherent problems in homosexual unions. For example, my best friend's counseling course at the University of New Mexico (the liberal berlkley of the southwest) used a text book that discussed how studies have shown that homosexual men are less likely to be able to establish Love (defined as devotion to a person in spite of their faults, while not ignoring those faults) and were much more likely to form relationships based on infatuation (defined as that "puppy" love where you just pretend that the other person has not faults. This immaturity in romantic relatinshiops is a definite sign of the problems of homosexual unions.


The point has been made that homosexual relationships are made in a society that still, by and large, condemns them. Psychology will also tell you that plenty of Indian women have insecurity issues about the paleness of their skin, because in India a 'wheatish' (ie. pale) complexion is still a prime mark of 'beauty'. This does not mean that Indian women are inherently insecure, or vain, or preoccupied by their skin colour - it only tells you how they are affected by society.


Quote
And, no I don't just think that its a problem of prejudice. It clearly is not natural. I mean look at the design of our bodies.


Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a rubbish argument. Homosexual sex is both possible, and (reportedly) physically gratifying. Indeed, as I have said before, there is little or nothing bar the gender of participants to distinguish lesbian sex from acts within normal heterosexual relationships. If you refer to our reproductive capacities, go look in the threads Cleveland linked to. I bet there's one that asks you to consider the case for barren women or infertile men having marital relations.


Yes homosexuality is possible. But so is putting my finger in an electris socket. Just beacuse something is possible does not mean that it is good for you nor that it is an ordered act.
Yes, man can have sex with a man. But the question is, did male genitalia and excritory organs evolve for that purpose? The answer is a resounding "no". They evovled to function properly with the female anatomy, and this is just pure science.

No, it is not. The first axiom of science is that you cannot prove, only disprove. You cannot prove that male and female anatomy evolved (interesting choice of word) exclusively for the purpose of heterosexual relations. But I take your first point, and I see where you're coming from.

Quote
As for barren women, there is no problem here because they are still using their anatomy for the intended purpose: namely, sexual activity with a man. Again, the organs evolved (were created for that purpose).

Let me be blunt with you. Homosexual sex is difficult to pull off physically because the parts weren't designed for that purpose.

I am female. I can't comment on male homosexuality. But female homosexual acts are easy as pie.

Quote
Finally, promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong for different reasons and thus I would apply a completely different arguement to the problems of adultery or fornication.

Fair point.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #128 on: September 10, 2009, 03:40:56 PM »

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a rubbish argument.

This is an entire argument about what is natural or un-natural, so why don't you prove first, and then claim as rubbish.


I apologise, I didn't realise the whole argument was about what is natural or un-natural. I don't find it terribly useful, as I suggested above when I said that monasticism is not 'natural', yet still it is holy. As I've said to Papist, I'm afraid I don't believe one can 'prove' a scientific hypothesis.

Homosexual sex is both possible, and (reportedly) physically gratifying.

The Church isn't concerned with physically gratifying activity - we'd encourage opiate use if we were.  We're in the business of getting people united with their Savior, and of building the kinds of relationships He wants us to use to get to that point.

[/quote]

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

If you refer to our reproductive capacities, go look in the threads Cleveland linked to. I bet there's one that asks you to consider the case for barren women or infertile men having marital relations. 

A thorough study of Christian history will provide you with plenty of examples to support the following: there is no such thing as absolute barrenness.  Plenty of women have been barren, and through prayer and God's grace have enjoyed Childbirth.  It is a reversible condition - homosexual sex's natural barrenness is not, thanks to the natural order.
[/quote]

That's a good point, and one which I take on board.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #129 on: September 10, 2009, 03:44:06 PM »

Rom Touchstone Magazine, By Huw Rafael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find this deeply sad. I know of a heterosexual, married couple who have an 'open' relationship. No, in my view, it's not healthy. But neither does homosexuality open the door to such things. What your article describes sounds indeed like hell. But it is not representative of homosexual experience. Do you assume that homosexuals are somehow more depraved, more weak, than any other person who has extramarital sex?
Liz, I'm going to have to say that the vast majority of homosexual men that I have encountered do or have participated in the things described above. I dont think its because they are intrinisically more evil than everyone else. I just think it happens because the homosexual act is such an incredible overturning of the natural order. See Romans Chapter 1
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #130 on: September 10, 2009, 03:44:23 PM »

Although I am not Eastern Orthodox, I highly doubt that the EO Church has changed its position on suicide. I think she still teaches that Suicide is gravely sinful. However, I would wager that she recognizes differing levels of culpability with regard to the act itseld, depending on the psychological state of the person. The EO Church may be emphasizing mercy more now in respect to suicide, but I don't believe she has changed.

If I understand this correctly, the former teaching was that suicide is actually the same as murder. There was no discussion about any possible excuse for what the person did, ending his or her life. Now, the notion is that suicide may be the result of disease - and therefore the victims of suicide, if they committed it being ill, must be mourned after, like any other departed people, and given the Orthodox burial. AFAIK, that is a VERY big change. And of course to the better. And of course driven by better awareness about the work of the human brain.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 03:45:17 PM by Heorhij » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,901


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #131 on: September 10, 2009, 03:45:38 PM »

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #132 on: September 10, 2009, 03:47:05 PM »


No, it is not. The first axiom of science is that you cannot prove, only disprove. You cannot prove that male and female anatomy evolved (interesting choice of word) exclusively for the purpose of heterosexual relations. But I take your first point, and I see where you're coming from.

Quote
I don't buy that arguement. Science has give solid positive evidence of many things. I think evolution in general is a great example.

I am female. I can't comment on male homosexuality. But female homosexual acts are easy as pie.

Quote
They may be easy but they do not conform the massive amount of evidence that the Penis and Vagina evovled to be sexually compatible with one another, under normal circumstances for the purpose of procreation.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,127


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #133 on: September 10, 2009, 03:47:48 PM »

Why is it hard to reconcile the following non-contradictory points?
  • Homosexuals are people, children of God, and are to be treated as such
  • Homosexual sex should not be treated worse than adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.
  • Re: Homosexual Sex
  • Just because it's not worse doesn't mean it's ok.
  • The natural state of attraction does not necessitate that the sexual act is natural or good
  • Because it's not natural, and because it hasn't been revealed to us to be natural, it hasn't been included in the privileges of or justification for marriage.
  • Because it's not included in the privileges of marriage, then it is by nature an extra-marital act.
  • Don't spend so much ink condemning homosexuals that you condemn yourself for your own sins.
  • Don't insinuate that just because heterosexuals have sex outside marriage, that homosexuals should too - neither group should.
I can agree with this. And just to clarify, I'm not saying that homosexuals are greater sinners than heterosexuals. I am just saying that because homosexuality is such an overturning of God's natural order (see Romans Chapter 1) that it can in fact lead to some serious problems. I would go so far as to argue that homosexuality exists in contradiction to our human nature.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 03:49:29 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #134 on: September 10, 2009, 03:48:30 PM »

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

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

Have mercy on me, a sinner.
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 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.