Russian church: Homosexuality is personal choice

[Patriarch Noah I]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhcRjyymhm_fzqzblWdA9Cnj8qOgD9CP32981

"MOSCOW — The head of the Russian Orthodox Church said Wednesday that although the church views homosexuality as a sin, gays should not face discrimination.

Patriarch Kirill said "those who sin" must not be punished and therefore the church opposes any discrimination. Same-sex unions, however, should not be considered equal to heterosexual marriages, he said.

"We accept all the choices a person makes — in terms of their sexuality as well," the patriarch said in comments carried by the state RIA Novosti news agency."

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Is His Holiness endorsing civil-unions intead of marriages? Or is he just saying we shouldn't round them up and stone them?

[Super Apostolic Bros.]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhcRjyymhm_fzqzblWdA9Cnj8qOgD9CP32981

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Is His Holiness endorsing civil-unions intead of marriages? Or is he just saying we shouldn't round them up and stone them?

He is saying the latter. The article says that the church considers same-sex unions as not equal to marriages (which I agree). I think this statement is a balanced one, maintaining Christian practice without appearing too tyranical.

[Fr. George]

ISTM he's saying that the Church doesn't support homosexual activity & marriage, but the Church also doesn't support people persecuting homosexuals.

[Father H]

I agree.   The ambiguous "we accept all the choices a person makes" is perhaps faulty translation or just obscure language, but the point is that it is a choice, and one that is sin at that, which I think is apparently clear. 

[Punch]

ISTM he's saying that the Church doesn't support homosexual activity & marriage, but the Church also doesn't support people persecuting homosexuals.

That is how I understand his words, also.

[mathetes]

I agree.   The ambiguous "we accept all the choices a person makes" is perhaps faulty translation or just obscure language, but the point is that it is a choice, and one that is sin at that, which I think is apparently clear. 

Good thoughts! I would've preferred it if the translator had substituted the word "tolerate" for "accept." We should never give the impression that sinful choices are acceptable to us. We tolerate, endure, or put up with them until our Lord's return.

[deusveritasest]

This sort of message is greatly needed in Russia right now. Many believers are extremely intolerant, to the point that at the Moscow Pride parade ('07 I believe) they were literally beating people with processional crosses. 

[BoredMeeting]

Behavior is always a choice, except for the mentally ill of course.

Certain behaviors can never be accepted by the Orthodox Church.

[deusveritasest]

Behavior is always a choice, except for the mentally ill of course.

Certain behaviors can never be accepted by the Orthodox Church.

Like beating people with processional crosses.

[BoredMeeting]

Behavior is always a choice, except for the mentally ill of course.

Certain behaviors can never be accepted by the Orthodox Church.

Like beating people with processional crosses.

I've yet to see a group promote that behavior while claiming to uphold Orthodoxy.

[ialmisry]

Behavior is always a choice, except for the mentally ill of course.

Certain behaviors can never be accepted by the Orthodox Church.

Like beating people with processional crosses.

How you feel about demolishing Churches that perform homosexual "marriages?"

[Bogoliubtsy]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

[ialmisry]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

[Bogoliubtsy]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

No, that's Gene Robinson, the God fearing and compassionate Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. You know, he's part of that church that can grapple with issues that took place after the 9th century.

[ialmisry]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

No, that's Gene Robinson, the God fearing and compassionate Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. You know, he's part of that church that can grapple with issues that took place after the 9th century.

You mean the one born of marrying a sister in law, casting aside a faithful wife (which does bear a simultude to Gene Robinson's personal behavior) because she doesn't bear a son, serial adultery, murder of spouses on drummed up charges of incest and facts of loss of virginity prior to marriage.....that church? It hasn't grappled, it has succumbed.

[Bogoliubtsy]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

No, that's Gene Robinson, the God fearing and compassionate Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. You know, he's part of that church that can grapple with issues that took place after the 9th century.

You mean the one born of marrying a sister in law, casting aside a faithful wife (which does bear a simultude to Gene Robinson's personal behavior) because she doesn't bear a son, serial adultery, murder of spouses on drummed up charges of incest and facts of loss of virginity prior to marriage.....that church? It hasn't grappled, it has succumbed.

Yes, that's the Church. Not to be confused with the one that butchered and burned alive tens of thousands of Christians in Russia who wanted to cross themselves the "wrong" way.

[Anastasios]

This thread is heating up. Please everyone, take a step back.

Fr Anastasios

[BoredMeeting]

How you feel about demolishing Churches that perform homosexual "marriages?"

Are you referring to the case in Russia where they decided not to repair the dilapidated church because it had been desecrated by a priest who violated Church teachings?

[BoredMeeting]

Yes, that's the Church. Not to be confused with the one that butchered and burned alive tens of thousands of Christians in Russia who wanted to cross themselves the "wrong" way.

Are you blaming the modern Church for actions taken by a Medieval Tsar?

[Bogoliubtsy]

Yes, that's the Church. Not to be confused with the one that butchered and burned alive tens of thousands of Christians in Russia who wanted to cross themselves the "wrong" way.

Are you blaming the modern Church for actions taken by a Medieval Tsar?

Of course not. Nor am I blaming the Episcopal Church for the actions of Henry VIII.

[BoredMeeting]

If V. Gene Robinson had announced from the pulpit that he was leaving his wife because he had realized that he was only attracted to young women, would his congregation have applauded him as well?

[ialmisry]

If V. Gene Robinson had announced from the pulpit that he was leaving his wife because he had realized that he was only attracted to young women, would his congregation have applauded him as well?

I wonder....

[ialmisry]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

No, that's Gene Robinson, the God fearing and compassionate Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. You know, he's part of that church that can grapple with issues that took place after the 9th century.

You mean the one born of marrying a sister in law, casting aside a faithful wife (which does bear a simultude to Gene Robinson's personal behavior) because she doesn't bear a son, serial adultery, murder of spouses on drummed up charges of incest and facts of loss of virginity prior to marriage.....that church? It hasn't grappled, it has succumbed.

Yes, that's the Church. Not to be confused with the one that butchered and burned alive tens of thousands of Christians in Russia who wanted to cross themselves the "wrong" way.

As I recall, the one's crossing themselves "in the wrong way" locked themselves in their Churches and burned themselves alive.  Do find a correction if that is incorrect.

[Bogoliubtsy]

On the one hand, it's a good thing- the statement aims to protect the well being of homosexuals in a largely anti-gay society. On the other hand, it casts sexual orientation in terms of a choice, which only serves to further the antiquated

Because tried and true of course is no good.

idea that homosexuals chose their orientation (the fact that no sane person would chose to be gay in Russia is proof alone that this isn't the case) , as opposed to being created/hardwired that way.

because that's the opinion du jour, and so we must bow to it.

Btw, is that Gene Robinson, the Sodomite adulterer that the Episcopalians installed as their "bishop" in NH, in your avatar?

No, that's Gene Robinson, the God fearing and compassionate Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. You know, he's part of that church that can grapple with issues that took place after the 9th century.

You mean the one born of marrying a sister in law, casting aside a faithful wife (which does bear a simultude to Gene Robinson's personal behavior) because she doesn't bear a son, serial adultery, murder of spouses on drummed up charges of incest and facts of loss of virginity prior to marriage.....that church? It hasn't grappled, it has succumbed.

Yes, that's the Church. Not to be confused with the one that butchered and burned alive tens of thousands of Christians in Russia who wanted to cross themselves the "wrong" way.

As I recall, the one's crossing themselves "in the wrong way" locked themselves in their Churches and burned themselves alive.  Do find a correction if that is incorrect.

Some, yes. Others, torture and murder.

[BoredMeeting]

If V. Gene Robinson had announced from the pulpit that he was leaving his wife because he had realized that he was only attracted to young women, would his congregation have applauded him as well?

I wonder....

You...you're not suggesting that they might by hypocrites, are you?  GASP!

[Bogoliubtsy]

If V. Gene Robinson had announced from the pulpit that he was leaving his wife because he had realized that he was only attracted to young women, would his congregation have applauded him as well?

There's choice attraction and then there's genetically predisposed orientation. If anything, he began to live his life according to the latter - his actual nature. I'm sure societal norms which are, of course, not in any sense God given, dictated the course of his early love life. Plenty of gay men and women try for years to live a lie against their nature, only to find it unbearable to any longer live that lie.


What if an ancient hagiography told the story of a man who left his wife to become a monk. Would that be celebrated by the Orthodox? Because it is.

[BoredMeeting]

If V. Gene Robinson had announced from the pulpit that he was leaving his wife because he had realized that he was only attracted to young women, would his congregation have applauded him as well?

There's choice attraction and then there's genetically predisposed orientation.

Pausing here to note that no one has been able to identify a genetic link to same-sex attraction.

If anything, he began to live his life according to the latter - his actual nature. I'm sure societal norms which are, of course, not in any sense God given, dictated the course of his early love life.

How is any of that different from a man who realizes twenty years and several children into a marriage that he is not attracted to his spouse in any way but has an overwhelming urge to run off with a much younger woman?

You seem to be suggesting that if the attraction is strong enough, then it isn't sinful but is something to be celebrated.

[PeterTheAleut]

Thread locked in light of recent moratorium on discussion of homosexuality until after Pentecost

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Russian church: Homosexuality is personal choice