Topic: Sodogamy vs. homosexual

[Michael36]

I bet you do. I bet it just warmed your heart.

And what is this??
¨I'm just happy when they remain Christian at all and stick with one partner as opposed to drowning themselves in the cess-pit that is the "Gay Culture"

Uh, that is an ¨Orthodox¨ position?? Not quite. The day I see open homosexual couples taking the eucharist in a church sweetheart is the day me and my family walk out of it. And no, I do not care what you think of me. And I do not think I would be going alone either. 

 

Please point out where I said unrepentant active homosexuals should be allowed communion 

[Michael36]

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about. The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

No, as I pointed out, "Sodomite" is an English phenomena and a misnomer. Just like "Byzantine" is now an adjective in the English language for elaborate bureaucracy due to Western Crusader prejudices against the snooty Easterners who preferred diplomacy to war and ate food with forks. I also pointed out that the sin of Sodom is spelled out very clearly in Ezekiel. You can certainly say that homosexuality and male gang-raping were a part of that description, but he didn't smite them just for that.

[JamesR]

Umm what is the purpose of this thread? Either way, I feel pretty grossed out... Sexual intercourse alone seems gross enough as it is to me, and now you people are talking about anal sex? Eww. What's wrong with mutual masturbation?

[Michael36]

Uh, that is an ¨Orthodox¨ position?? Not quite. The day I see open homosexual couples taking the eucharist in a church sweetheart is the day me and my family walk out of it. And no, I do not care what you think of me. And I do not think I would be going alone either. 

It's Michael's position, not Orthodoxy's, and I happen to agree with him.

I already guessed that. 

There are other places for homosexual Christians to worship Christ.

If a Christian church  will not let in homosexuals to worship Christ it is not a Christian church in my opinion. 

And "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth!" Don't worry that homosexuals will spoil your precious church experience in an Orthodox parish, sweetheart. It won't happen. 

Homosexuals in a church will not spoil my church experience. In fact I can not think of a better place for them. What would spoil my experience is the church pretending sinful and harmful activity is not, well....sinful and harmful. 

Let me make my point clear. I am in college now, I now have, and have had several gay friends in the past. Most of them have rejected Christianity, thanks to stupid pastors who "just tell em like it is from teh Bible" without an ounce of charity. Often this is mixed with the belief that you can "pray the gay away", an exorcism (not kidding), or a good healthy Puritanical public shaming.

These are Protestant practices, not Orthodox. A homosexual is what they are, that is their cross to bear. The only real alternative is celibacy. Don't get me wrong, I would be overjoyed to hear of more homosexuals taking the Fr. Seraphim route, but Fr. Seraphim was an exceptional person. So, when I hear from a gay person that they still love Christ, but they go to the Episcopalian Church or the Pentecostal Church or that "[they] had a dream where God told them '[they] were 'ok'' " then I'm just relieved that they haven't gone over to the other side. All you can do is elucidate the Church's teachings and hope they bear some of the cross. Ultimately we're against the world in this and because of our culture and the morals are being rewritten, and it's just way too easy for them to be convinced to blow off the cross of celibacy.

As for my advising those who "can't" handle celibacy to be monogamous and avoid emphasizing sex-- which is not the same as saying "it's ok; please eat and drink condemnation unto yourself with impunity"-- Metropolitan Kallistos is with me on this and a few other Church figures I'm aware of. I'm totally cool with the hard-liners if they speak in love.

[Kerdy]

Umm what is the purpose of this thread? Either way, I feel pretty grossed out... Sexual intercourse alone seems gross enough as it is to me, and now you people are talking about anal sex? Eww. What's wrong with mutual masturbation?

After observing your reference in several threads over a period of months, I am convinced you are infatuated with and engrossed with masturbation.  This is most likely the result of your age.  The problem is no one else in the world cares to know about this.  My meaning is not to be harsh, rather to instruct you certain things should remain out of the public’s attention.  This is something you should discuss on a personal level with someone, not the entire planet.  

In reply to your question, there is a lot wrong with it.  Anything sexual, anything, outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, period.  Even certain things inside the bonds of marriage are intrinsically immoral.  So, again, the answer is, a lot.

[JamesR]

In reply to your question, there is a lot wrong with it.  Anything sexual, anything, outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, period.  Even certain things inside the bonds of marriage are intrinsically immoral.  So, again, the answer is, a lot.

What is wrong with mutual masturbation within marriage? It's not like we're Papists who hold onto that weird view about Onan that ialmisry always refutes.

[Justin Kissel]

I feel pretty grossed out...

Sorry!

[Kerdy]

In reply to your question, there is a lot wrong with it.  Anything sexual, anything, outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, period.  Even certain things inside the bonds of marriage are intrinsically immoral.  So, again, the answer is, a lot.

What is wrong with mutual masturbation within marriage? It's not like we're Papists who hold onto that weird view about Onan that ialmisry always refutes.

Talk to your wife about it...

[Cyrillic]

In reply to your question, there is a lot wrong with it.  Anything sexual, anything, outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, period.  Even certain things inside the bonds of marriage are intrinsically immoral.  So, again, the answer is, a lot.

It's not like we're Papists who hold onto that weird view about Onan that ialmisry always refutes.

You looked up what the Latins think about taking the back alley and sausage massage and you're disgusted with us?

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

[Jetavan]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

[Αριστοκλής]

Poor OC.net must bear the distinction of being the most gonadocentric forum on the Internet. 

[Cyrillic]

Poor OC.net must bear the distinction of being the most gonadocentric forum on the Internet. 

A new word has been born?

[Jonathan Gress]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified. Pre-natal environment could certainly be a reason why orientation appears fixed from birth, and yet would have nothing to do with the genetics. However, identical twins share both genes and pre-natal environment, and yet if one is gay, the other is still different in orientation about 75% of the time!

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified. Pre-natal environment could certainly be a reason why orientation appears fixed from birth, and yet would have nothing to do with the genetics. However, identical twins share both genes and pre-natal environment, and yet if one is gay, the other is still different in orientation about 75% of the time!

You should read your own links better; it already covered this...

[Jonathan Gress]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified. Pre-natal environment could certainly be a reason why orientation appears fixed from birth, and yet would have nothing to do with the genetics. However, identical twins share both genes and pre-natal environment, and yet if one is gay, the other is still different in orientation about 75% of the time!

You should read your own links better; it already covered this...

Look, there is some evidence that homosexuality occurs more in some families than others: that suggests genetics. But if it were all in the genes, as the gay lobby would have us believe, we would never find e.g. identical twins differing in sexual orientation. It's clearly an interaction between something genetic and something environmental. The point is that sexual orientation is not like race or sex, which is purely genetic.

[NicholasMyra]

What would spoil my experience is the church pretending sinful and harmful activity is not, well....sinful and harmful.  

Are you also in favor, then, of the excommunication of those who commit usury until they repent?

Afaik, the Church Fathers unanimously condemned usury as one of the gravest of sins.

[ialmisry]

In reply to your question, there is a lot wrong with it.  Anything sexual, anything, outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, period.  Even certain things inside the bonds of marriage are intrinsically immoral.  So, again, the answer is, a lot.

What is wrong with mutual masturbation within marriage? It's not like we're Papists who hold onto that weird view about Onan that ialmisry always refutes.

Talk to your wife about it...

I should hope it is his wife he is talking to about it.  Otherwise, he's in that "outside marriage" zone.

[ialmisry]

What would spoil my experience is the church pretending sinful and harmful activity is not, well....sinful and harmful.  

Are you also in favor, then, of the excommunication of those who commit usury until they repent?

Afaik, the Church Fathers unanimously condemned usury as one of the gravest of sins.

Matthew 25:27

[NicholasMyra]

Matthew 25:27

Yeah. That our only interest should be in the kingdom of heaven was one of St. Basil's main points.

"Do not give your money at interest, on order that, having been taught what is good from the Old and the New Testament, you may depart to the Lord with good hope, receiving there the interest from your good deeds, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power unto the ages."

[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...

That's not the historical meaning of Sodomite. If you look up "Grace" in a dictionary, you'll get "unmerited favor" because Protestantism has influenced the English Language. Homosexual sex was not the sin of Sodom and that comes straight from the Bible: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49.

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, no they don't.  In German, for instance, it means bestiality, and it never appeared in Orthodox literature until Peter's adoption of Western codes. The word doesn't appear with the meaning of "homosexual anal sex" until the 11th century in the West.

The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

I'm afraid the PC crowd have firmer ground to stand on than you think and more than I would like.  Look at the exegesis of Genesis from the first millenium, indeed even the first millenium BC, as shown by Ezekiel.

[JamesRottnek]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified. Pre-natal environment could certainly be a reason why orientation appears fixed from birth, and yet would have nothing to do with the genetics. However, identical twins share both genes and pre-natal environment, and yet if one is gay, the other is still different in orientation about 75% of the time!

You should read your own links better; it already covered this...

Look, there is some evidence that homosexuality occurs more in some families than others: that suggests genetics. But if it were all in the genes, as the gay lobby would have us believe, we would never find e.g. identical twins differing in sexual orientation. It's clearly an interaction between something genetic and something environmental. The point is that sexual orientation is not like race or sex, which is purely genetic.

I was commenting on the claim that twins share both genes AND pre-natal environment; which your own source says is not true, because one twin can indeed receive more of something (say, testosterone) than the other.

[Green_Umbrella]

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...

That's not the historical meaning of Sodomite. If you look up "Grace" in a dictionary, you'll get "unmerited favor" because Protestantism has influenced the English Language. Homosexual sex was not the sin of Sodom and that comes straight from the Bible: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49.

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, no they don't.  In German, for instance, it means bestiality, and it never appeared in Orthodox literature until Peter's adoption of Western codes. The word doesn't appear with the meaning of "homosexual anal sex" until the 11th century in the West.

The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

I'm afraid the PC crowd have firmer ground to stand on than you think and more than I would like.  Look at the exegesis of Genesis from the first millenium, indeed even the first millenium BC, as shown by Ezekiel.

Let's get down to brass tacks? Homosexual activity is a sin, yes or no?

[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...

That's not the historical meaning of Sodomite. If you look up "Grace" in a dictionary, you'll get "unmerited favor" because Protestantism has influenced the English Language. Homosexual sex was not the sin of Sodom and that comes straight from the Bible: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49.

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, no they don't.  In German, for instance, it means bestiality, and it never appeared in Orthodox literature until Peter's adoption of Western codes. The word doesn't appear with the meaning of "homosexual anal sex" until the 11th century in the West.

The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

I'm afraid the PC crowd have firmer ground to stand on than you think and more than I would like.  Look at the exegesis of Genesis from the first millenium, indeed even the first millenium BC, as shown by Ezekiel.

Let's get down to brass tacks? Homosexual activity is a sin, yes or no?

yes, like any other adulterous activity or fornication.

[Green_Umbrella]

What would spoil my experience is the church pretending sinful and harmful activity is not, well....sinful and harmful.  

Are you also in favor, then, of the excommunication of those who commit usury until they repent?

Afaik, the Church Fathers unanimously condemned usury as one of the gravest of sins.

Yes.

[Green_Umbrella]

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...

That's not the historical meaning of Sodomite. If you look up "Grace" in a dictionary, you'll get "unmerited favor" because Protestantism has influenced the English Language. Homosexual sex was not the sin of Sodom and that comes straight from the Bible: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49.

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, no they don't.  In German, for instance, it means bestiality, and it never appeared in Orthodox literature until Peter's adoption of Western codes. The word doesn't appear with the meaning of "homosexual anal sex" until the 11th century in the West.

The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

I'm afraid the PC crowd have firmer ground to stand on than you think and more than I would like.  Look at the exegesis of Genesis from the first millenium, indeed even the first millenium BC, as shown by Ezekiel.

Let's get down to brass tacks? Homosexual activity is a sin, yes or no?

yes, like any other adulterous activity or fornication.

End of story. The rest is just an intellectual exercise in word salad.

[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...

That's not the historical meaning of Sodomite. If you look up "Grace" in a dictionary, you'll get "unmerited favor" because Protestantism has influenced the English Language. Homosexual sex was not the sin of Sodom and that comes straight from the Bible: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49.

Blah, blah, blah....sorry. Protestantism, smotestantism.. Not buying it. When you say Sodomite everyone one knows exactly what you are talking about.

Actually, no they don't.  In German, for instance, it means bestiality, and it never appeared in Orthodox literature until Peter's adoption of Western codes. The word doesn't appear with the meaning of "homosexual anal sex" until the 11th century in the West.

The word works for me and it seems everyone else. And I am not buying Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were ¨lazy¨ or ¨rude¨ or whatever else it is you are trying to spin there. It sounds sweet. Very PC. Very touchy-feely and it is also a lot of BS.  For over 2,000 years everyone knew exactly why these cities were destroyed. Then suddenly in the last 30 everyone is confused?? Nah, not buying it. Do not even try to change my mind. It is not going to happen.

I'm afraid the PC crowd have firmer ground to stand on than you think and more than I would like.  Look at the exegesis of Genesis from the first millenium, indeed even the first millenium BC, as shown by Ezekiel.

Let's get down to brass tacks? Homosexual activity is a sin, yes or no?

yes, like any other adulterous activity or fornication.

End of story. The rest is just an intellectual exercise in word salad.

Not sure I want to go to your salad bar.

[NicholasMyra]

Yes.

Fair enough.

[NicholasMyra]

Sexual intercourse alone seems gross enough as it is to me, and now you people are talking about anal sex? Eww. What's wrong with mutual masturbation?

James,

You're a card, my friend.

You are not far from the Kingdom of Stoicism

[Kerdy]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

I'm predisposed to a violent nature, but I don't go around putting people in the emergency room and blame it on being born that way.  I love beautiful women, but I don't cheat on my wife and blame it on being born that way.  I think people have become overly sensitive and as a result, others feelings have become too fragile, and not just on this topic.  It's at the point there is no room for honest dialog without being labeled ad phobia or a hater.  I agree with Jonathan there is precious little evidence to support the claim, not saying it isn't true, just there is nothing substantial to support the claim.  I feel environmental (life experiences) does have A LOT to do with this and I have personal observations which developed this view.  I also think, get the torture equipment ready for me, many people choose this path.  Many don't, but many do, also developed from personal observation.

[Opus118]

Homosexuality is mostly caused by the environment, with a significant but smaller genetic component:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Of course, just because it's environmental doesn't mean it's susceptible to therapy, but really this nonsense about gays being "born" that way has got to stop. There is precious little scientific evidence for this.

If environmental causes are mostly the cause of homosexuality, then couldn't there be pre-natal environmental causes, such that that baby is eventually "born" predisposed to homosexuality?

Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified. Pre-natal environment could certainly be a reason why orientation appears fixed from birth, and yet would have nothing to do with the genetics. However, identical twins share both genes and pre-natal environment, and yet if one is gay, the other is still different in orientation about 75% of the time!

You should read your own links better; it already covered this...

Look, there is some evidence that homosexuality occurs more in some families than others: that suggests genetics. But if it were all in the genes, as the gay lobby would have us believe, we would never find e.g. identical twins differing in sexual orientation. It's clearly an interaction between something genetic and something environmental. The point is that sexual orientation is not like race or sex, which is purely genetic.

This reminded me of when I was a young teen in GOYA when it was almost considered a fact that homosexual boys were the result of domineering Greek mothers. This was puzzling to me since all of the Greek mothers that I knew were domineering and itching for a fight (mostly amongst each other). I did not understand the concept of potentiality at the time. I did spend some time looking into this concept today which led me to domineering and overly protective mothers and weak complacent fathers as a potentiating atmosphere for the nurturing of homosexual males. I also read that this notion was debunked by a large amount of studies. I did not find this large amount of studies. What I did find is that there is a positive correlation to parenting (up to this year 2012) but it remains unclear whether parental behavior caused atypical sexual behavior in the child or atypical sexual behavior in the child caused the parental behavior. I also found out that most of the twin studies came from Scandinavia and if you listen to Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion, one might have some doubts about the relevancy of those studies worldwide.

The bottom line is that I am siding with Jonathan on this issue. There is an environmental dimension to homosexuality. I do not know the degree. I do know there is a lot of hype and little substance if you just google this topic and there is not that much to be found in PubMed.

[dzheremi]

"Nature v. Nurture" arguments kinda take a backseat in our faith, which calls us to be more than we are, right? After all, we were born in iniquity, but we would prefer not to die in it. Why this all goes out the window when it comes to certain lifestyles is beyond me.

I know I've written something like this before on this forum concerning this topic, but this whole idea that something is "natural" or "inborn" and therefore of no consequence for the person is ridiculous to me. Not only are we called to be more than we are, but "being yourself" is kind of a nonsense idea...yourself as opposed to what? Anything you do, good bad or otherwise, you're doing it. So I don't know why it's a matter of being content with "being yourself" and having everybody go along with such a low goal (or be told that they're hateful bigots, and often being treated as pariahs), rather than being elevated above your own (supposedly) "natural" limitations, which after all is the whole point of Orthodox Christianity (i.e., Theosis).

[JamesR]

Whether it is 'nature' or 'chosen' is entirely irrelevant. The point is that Orthodoxy--if I understood my spiritual Father correctly--does NOT expect you to 'stop being homosexual' for lack of a better term, anymore than we would expect a heterosexual adulterer to stop being heterosexual, but to not engage in acts of homosexuality. Therefore, whether you are born homosexual or became that way through some other means is entirely irrelevant. I'm a lot of things--some bad, some good--some of which were chosen and some of which I would say were 'natural', but the point is that in the end I always have the choice of how exactly I act upon who/what I am. The only ones who care about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or 'chosen' are Protestant sects that expect homosexual people to 'pray the gay away' or 'stop being gay'.

[Jonathan Gress]

I recommend this:

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/CMF/

It's a discussion of sexuality by Bishop Alexander Mileant of ROCOR.

[NicholasMyra]

I also found out that most of the twin studies came from Scandinavia and if you listen to Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion, one might have some doubts about the relevancy of those studies worldwide.

Honor where honor is due.

[JamesRottnek]

I recommend this:

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/CMF/

It's a discussion of sexuality by Bishop Alexander Mileant of ROCOR.

So much fail in His Grace's work...

[Jonathan Gress]

I recommend this:

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/CMF/

It's a discussion of sexuality by Bishop Alexander Mileant of ROCOR.

So much fail in His Grace's work...

Do elaborate.

[age234]

Whether it is 'nature' or 'chosen' is entirely irrelevant.

This.

It doesn't matter how a person finds themselves in the place they're in. Yesterday is gone. Whether you were thrown into the mud by invisible demons or dove into the cesspool of your own free will doesn't matter.

Pick up and live today like the icon of Christ that you are.

[Kerdy]

Whether it is 'nature' or 'chosen' is entirely irrelevant. The point is that Orthodoxy--if I understood my spiritual Father correctly--does NOT expect you to 'stop being homosexual' for lack of a better term, anymore than we would expect a heterosexual adulterer to stop being heterosexual, but to not engage in acts of homosexuality. Therefore, whether you are born homosexual or became that way through some other means is entirely irrelevant. I'm a lot of things--some bad, some good--some of which were chosen and some of which I would say were 'natural', but the point is that in the end I always have the choice of how exactly I act upon who/what I am. The only ones who care about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or 'chosen' are Protestant sects that expect homosexual people to 'pray the gay away' or 'stop being gay'.

At least you had one part of your post accurate, sort of. 

[leap of faith]

I'm a nobody around here.  Living in a rather remote area, this site was my first opportunity to extend my learning about Orthodoxy from books to something a bit more personal.  Following 50 years in various Protestant churches, I'm all too familiar with the possible separation of writing about what a church teaches and how the people within that church actually live their lives.  After reading this thread, I'm thankful that I was received into the Church last year and am no longer an inquirer, but a member of a community of wonderful believers.  Had I still been an inquirer, this thread would have raised true doubt and question in my mind.  For those who attempted to put a stop to it, I thank you.  I pray that if an inquirer happens upon this thread, those words will be enough to overcome the complete lack of tact, compassion and humility which the Orthodox Church DOES teach.  An internet chat forum isn't enclosed in a bubble.  Words and attitudes are there for anyone and everyone to see.  Words either edify and build up or they corrode and tear down. One or the other. IMO, this thread is an embarrassment and brings shame upon us all.  But...as I already stated...I'm just a nobody around here.  

[augustin717]

So what is it disturbing in the thread: the lame puns of fr. Reardon, I hope?

[ialmisry]

So what is it disturbing in the thread: the lame puns of fr. Reardon, I hope?

Still continuing your bromance with the good Father I see.

[augustin717]

So what is it disturbing in the thread: the lame puns of fr. Reardon, I hope?

Still continuing your bromance with the good Father I see.

Actually I'll grant him that, unlike most clergy, he isn't boring; plus he has interesting stories about Merton.