Topic: Sodogamy vs. homosexual

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.

So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

[Jonathan Gress]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

[Green_Umbrella]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.
So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

I have already given a definition of sodomy on this thread. There is no need for another. You can look in any dictionary, they are all pretty much the same. I have also given scripture showing the act of sodomy clearly to be a sin. If you do not like the fact that sodomy is considered a sin in Christianity this is your problem. Not mine. 

[Green_Umbrella]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

And who are you to call sinners to repentance?  What about the woman, should she repent for having her anus used by the man?

Who are you to ask stupid questions?

[ialmisry]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

Who says your bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching?

[Jonathan Gress]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

Who says your bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching?

That's what bishops are. What are you, exactly?

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.
So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

I have already given a definition of sodomy on this thread.

So you did.

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy#cite_note-ReferenceA-0
since, however, anyone can write on wikipedia (you didn't cite your authority.  Bad form), it gives no page number for the Oxford Dictionary, its purported source (I prefer Mr. Webster, who, however, isn't a Church Father.  Nor is Mr. Black, of Legal Dictionary fame), and it also gives the problem of ambiguity of the term:

Elsewhere, the legal use of the term "sodomy" is restricted to rape cases where anal penetration has taken place.  In French, the word "sodomie" (verb "sodomiser"), and in Spanish, the word "sodomía" (verb sodomizar), is used exclusively for anal penetration.  In modern German, the word "Sodomie" has no connotation of anal or oral sex, and refers specifically to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) The same goes for the Polish "sodomia". The Norwegian word "sodomi" carries the both senses.

and further, undermines the basis of the term, e.g.:

The Book of Wisdom, which is included in the Biblical canon by Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but excluded by modern Jews, Protestants, and other Christian denominations, makes reference to the story of Sodom, further emphasizing that their sin had been failing to practice hospitality:
 "And punishments came upon the sinners not without former signs by the force of thunders: for they suffered justly according to their own wickedness, insomuch as they used a more hard and hateful behavior toward strangers." "For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of them." (KJV, Wisdom 19:13-14)

despite your protestation

There is no need for another.

yes, there is.

But not to worry. Although your statement

You can look in any dictionary, they are all pretty much the same.

is unfounded, as Mr. Webster's first definition (3rd World, 2165) defines it as:

carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal

which I could live with (as a definition  ), but I know would not please you, nor would be accepted by those who resent the term sodomy as applied to homosexuals and lumped with bestiality (I too would make a distinction), we can for sake of argument go with the one you seem to be suggesting:"any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal."

The first part is too vague, as the first is fine with married couples and hence not for unmarried and therefore homosexuals, and the second part is never fine.  Hence the term is too vague, yoking unequal members.

I have also given scripture showing the act of sodomy clearly to be a sin.

No, you have not.  In fact, your dependence on a mistranslation undermines your position.

If you do not like the fact that sodomy is considered a sin in Christianity this is your problem. Not mine.  

If you cannot read Greek, this is your problem.  Not mine.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

Who says your bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching?

That's what bishops are. What are you, exactly?

A communicant with the Orthodox bishops in the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Which is more, IIRC, than can be said for your bishop.

Who, btw, you have only invoked his authority, without citing him.

"That's what bishops are." Only whose in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apoostolic Church.  And even then, they are not infallible.

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

And who are you to call sinners to repentance?  What about the woman, should she repent for having her anus used by the man?

Who are you to ask stupid questions?

One dealing with stupid statements.

[JamesRottnek]

We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.

You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.

You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.

Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?

No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.

Wait, so why do all the straight, white, upper-middle-class, Christian boys I went to school with NOT hate themselves?

[ialmisry]

We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.

You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.

You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.

Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?

No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.

Wait, so why do all the straight, white, upper-middle-class, Christian boys I went to school with NOT hate themselves?

Because you went to a school that taught you how to read hearts?

Or perhaps the parents pulled them out of today's (re)education system?

[ialmisry]

We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.

You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.

You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.

Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?

No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.

Oh, to further identify it: the "education system" that finds it necessary to introduce sex ed in Kindergarten, read fairy tales about two mommies and dad's rooom-mate, advocate casual sex without the constraints of morality....that re-educational system."

[Shiny]

I guess those Man-hungry church going women have starved themselves by this thread.

[Green_Umbrella]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.
So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

I have already given a definition of sodomy on this thread.

So you did.

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

http://wj1.agxhqxwfduj.uk35.e.s35.hideme.ru/wiki/Sodomy#cite_note-ReferenceA-0
since, however, anyone can write on wikipedia (you didn't cite your authority.  Bad form), it gives no page number for the Oxford Dictionary, its purported source (I prefer Mr. Webster, who, however, isn't a Church Father.  Nor is Mr. Black, of Legal Dictionary fame), and it also gives the problem of ambiguity of the term:

Elsewhere, the legal use of the term "sodomy" is restricted to rape cases where anal penetration has taken place.  In French, the word "sodomie" (verb "sodomiser"), and in Spanish, the word "sodomía" (verb sodomizar), is used exclusively for anal penetration.  In modern German, the word "Sodomie" has no connotation of anal or oral sex, and refers specifically to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) The same goes for the Polish "sodomia". The Norwegian word "sodomi" carries the both senses.

and further, undermines the basis of the term, e.g.:

The Book of Wisdom, which is included in the Biblical canon by Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but excluded by modern Jews, Protestants, and other Christian denominations, makes reference to the story of Sodom, further emphasizing that their sin had been failing to practice hospitality:
"And punishments came upon the sinners not without former signs by the force of thunders: for they suffered justly according to their own wickedness, insomuch as they used a more hard and hateful behavior toward strangers." "For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of them." (KJV, Wisdom 19:13-14)

despite your protestation

There is no need for another.

yes, there is.
But not to worry. Although your statement

You can look in any dictionary, they are all pretty much the same.

is unfounded, as Mr. Webster's first definition (3rd World, 2165) defines it as:

carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal

which I could live with (as a definition  ), but I know would not please you, nor would be accepted by those who resent the term sodomy as applied to homosexuals and lumped with bestiality (I too would make a distinction), we can for sake of argument go with the one you seem to be suggesting:"any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal."
The first part is too vague, as the first is fine with married couples and hence not for unmarried and therefore homosexuals, and the second part is never fine.  Hence the term is too vague, yoking unequal members.

I have also given scripture showing the act of sodomy clearly to be a sin.

No, you have not.  In fact, your dependence on a mistranslation undermines your position.

If you do not like the fact that sodomy is considered a sin in Christianity this is your problem. Not mine.  

If you cannot read Greek, this is your problem.  Not mine.

I think when I define ¨sodomy¨ as any unnatural and unclean sexual act I have an accurate definition.

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

From this verse we can ask ourselves what is natural sexual relations between a man and a woman? Is it for the male to have intercourse using the females anus? No, it is not. The organs are not made for this act. There are problems. If anal sex between two men is unnatural and problematic why would not the same carry over to the female? I think it does. It seems common sense to me.

I do not understand what is to be gained by creating words and definitions to specifically target unnatural and unclean sexual acts among people anyways. 

[Cyrillic]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.     

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

No sodomites there.

Mαλακοὶ can mean sodomites, but in attic greek it would be equivalent with the english word of effeminates  or even fags, which usually comes down to the same thing.  Ἀρσενοκοίτης definitly means homosexual, but men sleeping with men would be a more literal translation. Just my two cents.

[podkarpatska]

The caustic comments, whether in jest or serious, hurt a lot of people.  People feel justified in their comments because somehow some sinners are less worthy of compassion and understanding.  It seems to me that some people think that compassion and understanding are somehow passions to be overcome.  Some people act as if compassion and understanding means that one is liberal and is willing to excuse/justify sinful behavior.  I just don't understand that.  Our Lord in the midst of His brutal, but saving, Passion sought to pardon the transgressions of those who murdered Him.  He was nothing but compassionate.

There are many in the Church who struggle with homosexuality.  They often feel alone.  They struggle to remain celibate, something that verges on an impossibility in this day and age, but is even more difficult when all they hear is caustic, mean-spirited comments from people in the Church, those very people who are essential in ensuring their salvation.  The celibate person cannot endure this yoke without his or her brothers and sisters in the Faith and most do not endure.  They feel isolated, completely alone.  Some here will say that they aren't speaking about celibate homosexuals, but only sexually active ones, but for those who struggle, that doesn't mean much.  The memories of teasing and taunting they endured from their peers and adults growing up comes  whirling back and hits like a fist.  For many, it is a reminder of how different they are and alone and a reminder to not hold out hope for a community that will support them. 

Many of your brothers and sisters who struggle with this issue have little support from anyone.  The gay community pities them and tries to "enlighten" them and/or holds them in absolute contempt and the Christian community doesn't seem to know how/is uncomfortable with/doesn't want to support those who struggle and/or holds them in absolute contempt. 

It is moments like these when the world seems most dark.  When those evil thoughts that the devil tries to put into the minds of those who struggle, those thoughts they constantly battle against, find their voice in the servants of Christ. 

I won't be returning to this thread and not even sure if I can return to this forum.  I'm not sure I could bear any of the responses I might get.

Lord, have mercy on your servants.

Hang in there. I figured that the discussion would continue. Perhaps those who feel the need to obsess on these issues and to loudly and crudely proclaim their opinions actually are somewhat insecure about their own, inner sexuality? Nah, of course not.

[Punch]

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes.  Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough.  We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Why be explicit about it if you don't care what they do?

Because the is nothing that he likes better than sodomy and masturbation threads. ABTV

[Punch]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

I seem to remember reading about BUFU in the Rudder.  It was considered one of the worst sins that a man could commit.  And the discussion was not one regarding homosexual behavior, but of a married man going anal on his wife.  I will try to find the page number for that discussion sometime today.  I used to be more neutral on that subject, but after reading that, I was very very happy that my wife had no interest in going there.

[Marc1152]

Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 

Celibate.

Your Grace

 

[Punch]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

Who says your bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching?

Perhaps since he has the Grace of the Holy Spirit from Ordination, and you don't.  I may be suspicious of clerics due to my Lutheran background, but I still consider any canonical Bishop a bit higher on the Orthodox totem pole than pretty much any layman (the exception being those very few laymen that even Bishops recognize to have particular Grace).  Your arguments on this subject are really rather ridiculous.  Do you really believe that any Bishop would say "go ahead and pump her in the dumper"?  Do you really believe that ANY council, if asked the question, would agree to anal (or even oral) sex?  This is a yes or no question.  And if you cannot answer it as "no", I am probably done taking anything that you have to say about Orthodoxy seriously. There is a BIG difference between doing what is wrong out of weakness, and justifying what is wrong.  

[Punch]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

I seem to remember reading about BUFU in the Rudder.  It was considered one of the worst sins that a man could commit.  And the discussion was not one regarding homosexual behavior, but of a married man going anal on his wife.  I will try to find the page number for that discussion sometime today.  I used to be more neutral on that subject, but after reading that, I was very very happy that my wife had no interest in going there.

Pages 943-944, footnotes.

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.     

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

No sodomites there.

Mαλακοὶ can mean sodomites, but in attic greek it would be equivalent with the english word of effeminates  or even fags, which usually comes down to the same thing.  Ἀρσενοκοίτης definitly means homosexual, but men sleeping with men would be a more literal translation. Just my two cents.

Mαλακοὶ is "catamite," to be precise, which down the road around the 8th century or so (I don't recall exactly when) became "masturbator."  Mαλακοὶ doesn't mean "sodomite" because a) we don't have a precise meaning to that word in English (in contrast to French or Spanish, where it really means Ἀρσενοκοίτης, or German, where it doesn't mean Mαλακοὶ-there not being many passive recipients of bestiality  ).  IOW, the word can't be proof texted by this verse, because anyone who could translate Mαλακοὶ as "sodomite" would be compelled even more so to so translate  Ἀρσενοκοίτης as well.

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.
So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

I have already given a definition of sodomy on this thread.

So you did.

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

http://wj1.agxhqxwfduj.uk35.e.s35.hideme.ru/wiki/Sodomy#cite_note-ReferenceA-0
since, however, anyone can write on wikipedia (you didn't cite your authority.  Bad form), it gives no page number for the Oxford Dictionary, its purported source (I prefer Mr. Webster, who, however, isn't a Church Father.  Nor is Mr. Black, of Legal Dictionary fame), and it also gives the problem of ambiguity of the term:

Elsewhere, the legal use of the term "sodomy" is restricted to rape cases where anal penetration has taken place.  In French, the word "sodomie" (verb "sodomiser"), and in Spanish, the word "sodomía" (verb sodomizar), is used exclusively for anal penetration.  In modern German, the word "Sodomie" has no connotation of anal or oral sex, and refers specifically to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) The same goes for the Polish "sodomia". The Norwegian word "sodomi" carries the both senses.

and further, undermines the basis of the term, e.g.:

The Book of Wisdom, which is included in the Biblical canon by Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but excluded by modern Jews, Protestants, and other Christian denominations, makes reference to the story of Sodom, further emphasizing that their sin had been failing to practice hospitality:
"And punishments came upon the sinners not without former signs by the force of thunders: for they suffered justly according to their own wickedness, insomuch as they used a more hard and hateful behavior toward strangers." "For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of them." (KJV, Wisdom 19:13-14)

despite your protestation

There is no need for another.

yes, there is.
But not to worry. Although your statement

You can look in any dictionary, they are all pretty much the same.

is unfounded, as Mr. Webster's first definition (3rd World, 2165) defines it as:

carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal

which I could live with (as a definition  ), but I know would not please you, nor would be accepted by those who resent the term sodomy as applied to homosexuals and lumped with bestiality (I too would make a distinction), we can for sake of argument go with the one you seem to be suggesting:"any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal."
The first part is too vague, as the first is fine with married couples and hence not for unmarried and therefore homosexuals, and the second part is never fine.  Hence the term is too vague, yoking unequal members.

I have also given scripture showing the act of sodomy clearly to be a sin.

No, you have not.  In fact, your dependence on a mistranslation undermines your position.

If you do not like the fact that sodomy is considered a sin in Christianity this is your problem. Not mine.  

If you cannot read Greek, this is your problem.  Not mine.

I think when I define ¨sodomy¨ as any unnatural and unclean sexual act I have an accurate definition.

One that St. Jerome, "St." Peter Damian et alia would approve of, as they denigrated "man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex."

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Yes, I dealt with your prooftexting above:

I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not  penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all.  

Not much on kissing I guess.

From this verse we can ask ourselves what is natural sexual relations between a man and a woman?

We can ask ourselves, but on what basis do you judge?

Is it for the male to have intercourse using the females anus? No, it is not. The organs are not made for this act.

The speech organs are not made for speaking either, and yet we speak.  On the thread linked above IIRC I dealt with this silly, scholastic argument as proposed by Lactantius.

There are problems. If anal sex between two men is unnatural and problematic why would not the same carry over to the female?

Because two men can't get married.

I think it does. It seems common sense to me.

Was it Aristotle who said the unexamined life was not worth living?

Error shared does not make truth, no matter how commonly shared.

I do not understand what is to be gained by creating words and definitions to specifically target unnatural and unclean sexual acts among people anyways.  

So fornication, adultery and marriage (yes, the patristics you are going to have to depend on to defend your POV basically lump the last with the other two) are just the same thing.

[ialmisry]

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.

Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.

Me too.

Yes.  Anal does not exite me.

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.

But for some people, that is good enough.  We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.

Since I shouldn't, and don't, sleep with my neighbor's wife, I don't care what they do.

Why be explicit about it if you don't care what they do?

Because the is nothing that he likes better than sodomy and masturbation threads. ABTV

25,000+, and the vast majority have nothing to do with sodomy or mastrubation.  Makes me wonder about those who only notice my posts on sodomy (however that term is defined: given your German background, do we have a thread on bestiality?) and masturbation.

ABTV?

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

I seem to remember reading about BUFU in the Rudder.  It was considered one of the worst sins that a man could commit.  And the discussion was not one regarding homosexual behavior, but of a married man going anal on his wife.  I will try to find the page number for that discussion sometime today.  I used to be more neutral on that subject, but after reading that, I was very very happy that my wife had no interest in going there.

While you are looking that up, can you look up where it rants against married couples seeing each other nude, against married couples showering together, and how it exorts priests to break up the families of mixed marriages?

[ialmisry]

Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 

Celibate.

Your Grace

 

One hopes.

[Cyrillic]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.     

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

No sodomites there.

Mαλακοὶ can mean sodomites, but in attic greek it would be equivalent with the english word of effeminates  or even fags, which usually comes down to the same thing.  Ἀρσενοκοίτης definitly means homosexual, but men sleeping with men would be a more literal translation. Just my two cents.

Mαλακοὶ is "catamite," to be precise, which down the road around the 8th century or so (I don't recall exactly when) became "masturbator."  Mαλακοὶ doesn't mean "sodomite" because a) we don't have a precise meaning to that word in English (in contrast to French or Spanish, where it really means Ἀρσενοκοίτης, or German, where it doesn't mean Mαλακοὶ-there not being many passive recipients of bestiality  ).  IOW, the word can't be proof texted by this verse, because anyone who could translate Mαλακοὶ as "sodomite" would be compelled even more so to so translate  Ἀρσενοκοίτης as well.

Actually, Mαλακóς has a lot of meanings. I looked it up in my dictionary and it says Mαλακια can mean effeminacy. Oh, the joys of the greek language 

[ialmisry]

I don't recall advocates of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for their position.

I don't recall detractors of oral or anal sex ever demonstrating patristic support for any sexual position.  It seems that the urge to denigrate sex in general brought with it the urge to go into particulars, which those Fathers who spoke highly of marriage didn't seem to feel the need to go into.

It seems to be based on the idea that since sodomy is a "Western" term (not sure what the evidence for this assertion is, either)

It doesn't appear until Peter Damian (a saint and doctor of the Vatican)'s Liber Gomorrhianus, which condemned-in detail-various homosexual acts among the clergy.  He also had this to say to the wives of priests (whose marriages he held as void and nullifying their husband's orders and ministrations):

I address myself to you, you darlings of the priests, you tit-bits of the devil, poisons of the minds, daggers of souls, aconite of drinkers, bane of eaters, stuff of sin, occasion of destruction. To you I turn, I say , you whores of the ancient enemy, you hoopoes, vampires, bats, leeches, wolves. Come and hear me, you whores, you beds for fat swine to wallow in,

I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.

you bedrooms of unclean spirits, you nymphs, you sirens, you harpies, you Dianas, you wicked tigresses, you furious vipers...

http://books.google.com/books?id=9MBnbFg-jJgC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22occasion+of+destruction.+To+you+I+turn,+I+say,%22&source=bl&ots=K9oTXolNaN&sig=BMjKncJFcnqRNREMgvWOm0hV_yM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FeBKUJaOAdOK2QW8sIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22occasion%20of%20destruction.%20To%20you%20I%20turn%2C%20I%20say%2C%22&f=false
and when that failed, he castrated the priest.

therefore oral and anal sex are permitted within marriage. This is not what my bishop teaches.

I can't remember. Did we have a discussion about your bishop being in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church?

Which bishops teach that it is permitted? Do they provide patristic authority?

Like I said, most who respect the marital bed don't go into what goes on there.

My bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching. You are not, so provide some support for your position from someone that has such authority.

Who says your bishop is an authority on Orthodox teaching?

Perhaps since he has the Grace of the Holy Spirit from Ordination, and you don't.

So does Bp. Lazar Puhalo, and it He is claimed by even more, vagranti, types.

IIRC, Jonathan Gress' bishops say that the Orthodox bishops in the diptychs of the Catholic Church lack grace.  If he is wrong on such an obvious and pivotal matter, why would I accept an appel to his (still unnamed) authority?  Why should we

I may be suspicious of clerics due to my Lutheran background, but I still consider any canonical Bishop a bit higher on the Orthodox totem pole than pretty much any layman (the exception being those very few laymen that even Bishops recognize to have particular Grace).

And on that, except my Lutheran background didn't give me any anti-clerical suspicions, we are agreed.  But since Jonathan's bishop is not a canonical bishop, why do you bring that point up?

Your arguments on this subject are really rather ridiculous.  Do you really believe that any Bishop would say "go ahead and pump her in the dumper"?  Do you really believe that ANY council, if asked the question, would agree to anal (or even oral) sex?  This is a yes or no question.

No, it is not.  You'd be surprised: back in the day in Holy Mother Russia, when they held a synod on the question of priests (let alone the laity) failing to fast from marital relations during Great Lent, those who wished to condemn and penance, were laughed and balked at by the senior metropolitans.

And if you cannot answer it as "no", I am probably done taking anything that you have to say about Orthodoxy seriously. There is a BIG difference between doing what is wrong out of weakness, and justifying what is wrong.  

Well, then you have a problem, because those on whom you would depend to uphold what you have to say also justify "man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex" as a concession to human weakness.

The idea of a "Sodomy Synod" sounds rather interesting. Should we hold it in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? What precedence would we follow, as AFAICR, no synod has ever been held on an aspect of moral theology?

[Jonathan Gress]

@Isa:

For the record, my bishop has authority for various reasons: he is a bishop, with the special charismatic grace of the episcopacy to teach the faith; he grew up in the bosom of the Church, in a pious family, and with two uncles who were Hagiorites; he has lived the monastic life under the guidance of these uncles, and others in both the Greek (Old Calendar) and Russian (ROCOR) churches; for formal education he studied theology at the Theological School in Athens (he was a classmate of Patriarch Irineos of Jerusalem). He has never (as far as I know) preached about sexual behavior in marriage; this is something I have learned about from him in private conversation.

What about you? On what authority do you teach things that go against the conscience of just about everyone else in the room?

You are right this is not a topic which is proper for public preaching, except when certain people try to publicly argue that such behavior is compatible with Orthodoxy, in which case it is necessary to publicly refute it. I am inclined to believe my bishop since what he says fits with what I know the Church teaches about sexuality elsewhere e.g. in the penitential canons of St John the Faster, or in the Slavonic penitential literature described in Eve Levin's book. I know you like to be clever and argue that these canons have no authority, but otherwise your entire argument is one from silence. You claim that all the positive evidence against your position has no authority, and argue from this that since no authorities that you accept discuss the issues, they must somehow silently agree with you. But on this basis you could equally argue that by their silence they disagree with you. So far you haven't provided any positive evidence in your favor: no Father or Council, or even any bishop with whom you are in communion. I believe Punch is absolutely right that you would never find any Church authority claiming that unnatural sexual acts are permissible in marriage.

[Cyrillic]

This thread is beyond silly.

[Maria]

Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever?  

Celibate.

Not quite. Apparently today, celibate just means not marrying while still engaging in ungodly sexual activity (fornication, adultery, etc.) outside of marriage. Thus, living a celibate life apparently is not equal to living a chaste life.

Married couples can live chaste lives and still have marital intercourse. Chastity within marriage was certainly observed by Saints Joachim and Anna. However, some elderly married couples may not have marital intercourse by choice or by inability to function.

Those with a homosexual orientation are called by God to live a chaste and pure life, not just a celibate life. Nevertheless, all Christians are called to live a chaste and pure life according to their vocation in life, so no one is being singled out. Those in the monastic ranks should live according to the vow of chastity (the angelic life) which is different from living a chaste and pure life. Living a chaste life or the angelic life requires prayer and fasting.

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

I seem to remember reading about BUFU in the Rudder.  It was considered one of the worst sins that a man could commit.  And the discussion was not one regarding homosexual behavior, but of a married man going anal on his wife.  I will try to find the page number for that discussion sometime today.  I used to be more neutral on that subject, but after reading that, I was very very happy that my wife had no interest in going there.

Pages 943-944, footnotes.

LOL. Ah yes, the translator's uncanonical (he was a follower, actually more of a worshipper, if you read his interpolations) 2 cents.  IIRC he also appeales to the "scientific fact" that masturbation basically makes you physically enemic, so much so that you can tell a masturbator just by looking at him (I don't recall if he countenances the existence of female mastrubation).

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Just like in Cecil B. DeMille epics, so are sex and religion are a popular combination on this forum. 

[ialmisry]

@Isa:

For the record, my bishop has authority for various reasons: he is a bishop, with the special charismatic grace of the episcopacy to teach the faith; he grew up in the bosom of the Church, in a pious family, and with two uncles who were Hagiorites; he has lived the monastic life under the guidance of these uncles, and others in both the Greek (Old Calendar) and Russian (ROCOR) churches; for formal education he studied theology at the Theological School in Athens (he was a classmate of Patriarch Irineos of Jerusalem).

Your bishop rejects the authority of Pope Theodore of Alexandria, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch and the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America.  As such, he lacks the authority you are invoking fro him.

He has never (as far as I know) preached about sexual behavior in marriage; this is something I have learned about from him in private conversation

What about you? On what authority do you teach things that go against the conscience of just about everyone else in the room?

Amazing: the Monothelite Emperor argued the same appeal to authority against St. Maximos the Confessor.  The Emperor, a layman, challenged the right of St. Maximos, a layman, to challenge the whole Synod of Bishops.

Truth is not up for a voice vote.  Given your bishops' dependence on the incident of St. Maximos to excuse their schism, how did you miss that?

You are right this is not a topic which is proper for public preaching, except when certain people try to publicly argue that such behavior is compatible with Orthodoxy, in which case it is necessary to publicly refute it.

Or when certain people try to publically argue that their private dislikes are mandated by Orthodoxy, in which case it is necessary to publically refute it.

I am inclined to believe my bishop since what he says fits with what I know the Church teaches about sexuality elsewhere e.g. in the penitential canons of St John the Faster, or in the Slavonic penitential literature described in Eve Levin's book

Then you are against kissing, even married couples touching their feet, seeing the other unclothed...and all those other "disgusting" practices that said canons penance.  You are also thereby bound to assert that homosexual anal penetrating sex is no worse than dorsal sex ("doggy style") vaginal pentrating sex by a married couple.  And condemn-horror of horros!-any wife on top of her husband love-making positions.

I know you like to be clever and argue that these canons have no authority

Perhaps you can explain their authority, when the Ecumenical Councils withheld their authority from them, something that even the Pedalion admits.

but otherwise your entire argument is one from silence.

You are right this is not a topic which is proper for public preaching

He has never (as far as I know) preached about sexual behavior in marriage; this is something I have learned about from him in private conversation

That goes for "man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex" as well.  Unfortunatley, many remain silent even to defend that.

You claim that all the positive evidence against your position has no authority

No, I demonstrate that that "positive evidence" is negative against  "man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex" as well.  As such, it has only as much authority as you want to give to semi-(if not full blown)gnosticism.

and argue from this that since no authorities that you accept discuss the issues, they must somehow silently agree with you.

Care to quote me on that?

But on this basis you could equally argue that by their silence they disagree with you.

To judge by the defenses offered here, evidently not.

So far you haven't provided any positive evidence in your favor: no Father or Council, or even any bishop with whom you are in communion.

You are right this is not a topic which is proper for public preaching

He has never (as far as I know) preached about sexual behavior in marriage; this is something I have learned about from him in private conversation

I haven't invoked my bishops authority either.

I believe Punch is absolutely right that you would never find any Church authority claiming that unnatural sexual acts are permissible in marriage.

Sorry, I don't yield the definition of the terms of debate.  You bear the burden of finding some basis to label any sexual act between a married couple as "unnatural."  At least the Vatican, when it condemns contraception as "unnatural" even within marriage, takes up that burden.

[ialmisry]

Just like in Cecil B. DeMille epics, so are sex and religion are a popular combination on this forum. 

I remember being shocked at how shocked I was to find out how rare chastity was on the set of "The Ten Commandments."

[SolEX01]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

And who are you to call sinners to repentance?  What about the woman, should she repent for having her anus used by the man?

Who are you to ask stupid questions?

I am a sinner.  Besides, you haven't answered either question.   

[ialmisry]

Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever?  

Celibate.

Not quite. Apparently today, celibate just means not marrying while still engaging in ungodly sexual activity (fornication, adultery, etc.) outside of marriage. Thus, living a celibate life apparently is not equal to living a chaste life.

Married couples can live chaste lives and still have marital intercourse. Chastity within marriage was certainly observed by Saints Joachim and Anna. However, some elderly married couples may not have marital intercourse by choice or by inability to function.

Impotence does not chastity make.

Those with a homosexual orientation are called by God to live a chaste and pure life, not just a celibate life.

Confusing homosexual orientation with a call to monasticism, along with the "definition" of chastity you accurately gave above (although it predates "today" by quite some time, at least a millenium), has caused all sorts of woes, and not just with the Vatican.

Nevertheless, all Christians are called to live a chaste and pure life according to their vocation in life

Amen!

so no one is being singled out.

Amen!

Those in the monastic ranks should live according to the vow of chastity (the angelic life)

Amen!

which is different from living a chaste and pure life.

Amen!

Living a chaste life or the angelic life requires prayer and fasting.

Amen!

[ialmisry]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.     

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

No sodomites there.

Mαλακοὶ can mean sodomites, but in attic greek it would be equivalent with the english word of effeminates  or even fags, which usually comes down to the same thing.  Ἀρσενοκοίτης definitly means homosexual, but men sleeping with men would be a more literal translation. Just my two cents.

Mαλακοὶ is "catamite," to be precise, which down the road around the 8th century or so (I don't recall exactly when) became "masturbator."  Mαλακοὶ doesn't mean "sodomite" because a) we don't have a precise meaning to that word in English (in contrast to French or Spanish, where it really means Ἀρσενοκοίτης, or German, where it doesn't mean Mαλακοὶ-there not being many passive recipients of bestiality  ).  IOW, the word can't be proof texted by this verse, because anyone who could translate Mαλακοὶ as "sodomite" would be compelled even more so to so translate  Ἀρσενοκοίτης as well.

Actually, Mαλακóς has a lot of meanings. I looked it up in my dictionary and it says Mαλακια can mean effeminacy. Oh, the joys of the greek language 

Semitic as well:זנות had the same broad-and vague-semantic range as πορνεία, and of course those who like to go into deep detail about what they find disgusting try to define their personal dislikes into the definition (I see that the Vatican has redefined it into "invalid marriage" to support their Corban factories a/k/a the marriage tribunals/annullment dispensaries).

Btw, on the verse in question, some insight might be given by the discussions in the Talmud (since the rabbis were married men, unlike monks who imitated them in compiling penitentials), given that St. Paul had that same education as a Pharisee.  The scribes and rabbis worked with a rather broad definiton of "natural," including anal penetration (ejaculating there, however, was a sticking point).  I've been told by someone who knows far, FAR more on this topic than I do (the development of Jewish Law, not anal sex) that the rabbis were extremely laid back in the Talmudic period, i.e. when St. Paul was their colleague.  The idea of categorizing the privacy of marriage didn't happen until they came under the spell of Scholasticism, something that perhaps the condemers here might want to defend their reliance on Thomas Aquinas.

[Jonathan Gress]

Isa, you are simply saying that anal and oral sex are permitted in marriage. My bishop says not. He may be wrong, but you will have to provide a higher authority to justify yourself. My bishop outranks you in terms of authority, so simply offering your own interpretation of what's allowed and what isn't, without any positive statement in your favor from some universally recognized authority, like a Church Father or Council, doesn't cut it. And I don't think it's legitimate in Orthodox theology to argue from silence in the written record, let alone cherry-pick among various written authorities, like conveniently labeling everything that disagrees with you as the product of some nebulous "Western captivity". There is such a thing as unwritten tradition and unwritten authority. Even if there were no written statement on this matter whatsoever, the fact that my bishop tells me these acts are wrong should be taken as authoritative, unless you could show me that other bishops at other times said otherwise.

I don't know about the kissing and so forth. I am not saying that every canon has to be enforced to the letter; that is always up to the bishop. But there is surely a gradation in terms of the gravity of various sins. Kissing may be sinful to some degree, but surely not as much as unnatural sexual acts. A bishop may decide that kissing is not grave enough to earn a penance, but he wouldn't say the same for fornication. My point with respects to the canons of the Faster is that my bishop is not the only authority I've come across to condemn unnatural sexual activity, or sodomy. Coming across this condemnation in more than one place confirms in my mind that the Church really does condemn these acts.

[ialmisry]

Isa, you are simply saying that anal and oral sex are permitted in marriage. My bishop says not. He may be wrong, but you will have to provide a higher authority to justify yourself.

I'm sorry, how did I have to justify myself to either you or your bishop again?

My bishop outranks you in terms of authority

as he is not in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he has no authority. Otherwise, why appeal to your bishop's authority when you can appeal to His Holiness'?

so simply offering your own interpretation of what's allowed and what isn't, without any positive statement in your favor from some universally recognized authority, like a Church Father or Council, doesn't cut it.

And your offering your own interpretation of what's allowed and what isn't, without any positive statement in your favor from some universally recognized authority, like a Church Father or Council, cuts it how?

And I don't think it's legitimate in Orthodox theology to argue from silence in the written record, let alone cherry-pick among various written authorities

then why do you do it?

like conveniently labeling everything that disagrees with you as the product of some nebulous "Western captivity".

I've done no such thing: I have only pointed out, the IRREFUTABLE fact, that the term "sodomy" was developed within the Scholastic Latin West, and did not enter Orthodox discourse until  Peter suppressed the Orthodox Patriarchate and imposed his Westernization.  Nothing more.

The Western Captivity is anything but nebulous, that being the nature of Scholasticism and all.

There is such a thing as unwritten tradition and unwritten authority.

Yes, married couples share it.

Even if there were no written statement on this matter whatsoever, the fact that my bishop tells me these acts are wrong should be taken as authoritative

by me?  No, his authority doesn't jump over schism.

unless you could show me that other bishops at other times said otherwise.

Why?  Do you want a green light?

I don't know about the kissing and so forth. I am not saying that every canon has to be enforced to the letter;

Ah, but, appealing to them, you must.

that is always up to the bishop.

then he is delict in his duties if he isn't peeking into the bedrooms of the flock.

But there is surely a gradation in terms of the gravity of various sins.

There is: and your canons say that homosexual anal penetrating sex is no worse than heterosexual married dorsal  vaginal penetrating sex.  I don't recall offhand what their gradation of wife on top of husband is on the "gravity of various sins."

Kissing may be sinful to some degree

between the married, no, 0 degree, never sinful.

but surely not as much as unnatural sexual acts.

Like contraception?

A bishop may decide that kissing is not grave enough to earn a penance

no, he may not.

but he wouldn't say the same for fornication.

one perhaps would hope not, barring circumstances.

My point with respects to the canons of the Faster is that my bishop is not the only authority

they have no Ecumenical authority, notwithstanding the Pedalion's "argument from silence" that they do.

I've come across to condemn unnatural sexual activity, or sodomy.

there's that problem with the basis of definition of terms again

Coming across this condemnation in more than one place confirms in my mind that the Church really does condemn these acts.

well, your mind made up, I hope your wife feels the same.

Btw, I am simply saying that I have no basis to say anal and oral sex (like kissing or hand holding, dorsal vaginal sex or positions with the wife on top) are banned within wedlock.

[Green_Umbrella]

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.

There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.

There is no ¨was¨ to it. Sodomy is sin. You can sugar coat it and candy wrap it all you like but the fact remains. Sodomy is sin.
St. Paul “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves ...They Shall Not Inherit The Kingdom of God
Sinners need to repent. And that includes men who used their wives anus.      

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
No sodomites there.
So, you will have to a) define your term "sodomy" and b) establish its Orthodoxy (as it is coined by the scholastic Damian in the 12th century, and doesn't appear in any Orthodox context well into the Western Captivity, in the Westernized law code of Peter) to argue your point.

I have already given a definition of sodomy on this thread.

So you did.

We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.

Who's "we"? You and Satan?

¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...

http://wj1.agxhqxwfduj.uk35.e.s35.hideme.ru/wiki/Sodomy#cite_note-ReferenceA-0
since, however, anyone can write on wikipedia (you didn't cite your authority.  Bad form), it gives no page number for the Oxford Dictionary, its purported source (I prefer Mr. Webster, who, however, isn't a Church Father.  Nor is Mr. Black, of Legal Dictionary fame), and it also gives the problem of ambiguity of the term:

Elsewhere, the legal use of the term "sodomy" is restricted to rape cases where anal penetration has taken place.  In French, the word "sodomie" (verb "sodomiser"), and in Spanish, the word "sodomía" (verb sodomizar), is used exclusively for anal penetration.  In modern German, the word "Sodomie" has no connotation of anal or oral sex, and refers specifically to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) The same goes for the Polish "sodomia". The Norwegian word "sodomi" carries the both senses.

and further, undermines the basis of the term, e.g.:

The Book of Wisdom, which is included in the Biblical canon by Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but excluded by modern Jews, Protestants, and other Christian denominations, makes reference to the story of Sodom, further emphasizing that their sin had been failing to practice hospitality:
"And punishments came upon the sinners not without former signs by the force of thunders: for they suffered justly according to their own wickedness, insomuch as they used a more hard and hateful behavior toward strangers." "For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of them." (KJV, Wisdom 19:13-14)

despite your protestation

There is no need for another.

yes, there is.
But not to worry. Although your statement

You can look in any dictionary, they are all pretty much the same.

is unfounded, as Mr. Webster's first definition (3rd World, 2165) defines it as:

carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal

which I could live with (as a definition  ), but I know would not please you, nor would be accepted by those who resent the term sodomy as applied to homosexuals and lumped with bestiality (I too would make a distinction), we can for sake of argument go with the one you seem to be suggesting:"any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal."
The first part is too vague, as the first is fine with married couples and hence not for unmarried and therefore homosexuals, and the second part is never fine.  Hence the term is too vague, yoking unequal members.

I have also given scripture showing the act of sodomy clearly to be a sin.

No, you have not.  In fact, your dependence on a mistranslation undermines your position.

If you do not like the fact that sodomy is considered a sin in Christianity this is your problem. Not mine.  

If you cannot read Greek, this is your problem.  Not mine.

I think when I define ¨sodomy¨ as any unnatural and unclean sexual act I have an accurate definition.

One that St. Jerome, "St." Peter Damian et alia would approve of, as they denigrated "man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex."

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Yes, I dealt with your prooftexting above:

I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not  penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all.  

Not much on kissing I guess.

From this verse we can ask ourselves what is natural sexual relations between a man and a woman?

We can ask ourselves, but on what basis do you judge?

Is it for the male to have intercourse using the females anus? No, it is not. The organs are not made for this act.

The speech organs are not made for speaking either, and yet we speak.  On the thread linked above IIRC I dealt with this silly, scholastic argument as proposed by Lactantius.

There are problems. If anal sex between two men is unnatural and problematic why would not the same carry over to the female?

Because two men can't get married.

I think it does. It seems common sense to me.

Was it Aristotle who said the unexamined life was not worth living?

Error shared does not make truth, no matter how commonly shared.

I do not understand what is to be gained by creating words and definitions to specifically target unnatural and unclean sexual acts among people anyways.  

So fornication, adultery and marriage (yes, the patristics you are going to have to depend on to defend your POV basically lump the last with the other two) are just the same thing.

I do not think it necessary to go into many specifics on why normal sexual relations between men and women do not include anal sex. Again, this seems common sense to me. Something you apparently lack. The female can be injured. The male can be made sick by the bacteria. And that is just for starters. It is not a good practice. It is sodomy.  Sodomy being biblically defined as any unnatural and unclean sexual act. This is the basis for my opinion. I think it is on very solid ground. Your ideas, not so much.     

[Basil 320]

Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever?  

Celibate.

Not quite. Apparently today, celibate just means not marrying while still engaging in ungodly sexual activity (fornication, adultery, etc.) outside of marriage. Thus, living a celibate life apparently is not equal to living a chaste life.

Married couples can live chaste lives and still have marital intercourse. Chastity within marriage was certainly observed by Saints Joachim and Anna. However, some elderly married couples may not have marital intercourse by choice or by inability to function.

Those with a homosexual orientation are called by God to live a chaste and pure life, not just a celibate life. Nevertheless, all Christians are called to live a chaste and pure life according to their vocation in life, so no one is being singled out. Those in the monastic ranks should live according to the vow of chastity (the angelic life) which is different from living a chaste and pure life. Living a chaste life or the angelic life requires prayer and fasting.

"Those with a homosexual 'orientation' are" not only "called to live a chaste and pure life," but to grow in life in Christ as all are called, and grow in their spirituality, but homosexuals must work on correcting their perverted tendency.  "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them...and the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him...the Lord God...took one of Adam's ribs...and ...made He a women and brought her unto the man.  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called Women for she was taken out of Man.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."  Extracted from Genesis 1:27, 2:18, 21, 22, 23.  This is the natural order.

Contemporary psychology since the 1970's adopted the politically correct agenda, dropping its previous understanding of homosexuality as a mental disturbance.  Archbishop Chrysostoms of Etna (CA), of the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery and the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, American Exarch of the moderate Old Calendar Greek Synod in Resistance,  who earned multiple graduate and post graduate degrees from Eastern schools, has written that he has served as the spiritual father of homosexuals and with a great deal of work and prayer, ultimately corrected the sexually perverse homosexual feelings, correcting their so called "orientation."  It is a long and difficult process, but the point is, homosexual feelings can be corrected, returning people to the natural order.

[SolEX01]

I do not think it necessary to go into many specifics on why normal sexual relations between men and women do not include anal sex. Again, this seems common sense to me. Something you apparently lack. The female can be injured. The male can be made sick by the bacteria. And that is just for starters. It is not a good practice.

For some married people, you're exactly right.  Yet, there are married couples that want to experiment outside the bounds of "normal" sexuality.  Example, women are reading the 50 Shades of Grey series of books.  Care to know what it's about?

"50 Shades of Grey" tells the story of the very unconventional “romance” between the dashing, wealthy Christian Grey, a tycoon with a taste for the whip, and the innocent Anastasia Steele, a college literary student who willingly enters into a complicated dominant-submissive relationship with Grey.

What Bishop has outlawed sado-masochism as unnatural and unclean?  After all, sado-masochism can injure the female; sado-masochism can also injure the male; I don't find it good practice; however, I'm not one to tell someone else not to do it nor would I be inclined to engage in that kind of play not because my salvation is at stake ... I don't like it.

It is sodomy.  Sodomy being biblically defined as any unnatural and unclean sexual act. This is the basis for my opinion. I think it is on very solid ground. Your ideas, not so much.     

But the Bible has never told us what is unnatural and unclean.  This is like whether or not we should eat pork (no pun intended).