OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 01:51:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Homosexuality comes up frequenbtly on Orthodox forums because..
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 19 (26.8%)
Since drunkeness, adultery, theft and dishonesty have been eradicated it's the only sin left to fight - 10 (14.1%)
Apparently most Orthodox Christians have lots of gay family, friends and associates - 7 (9.9%)
Orthodox forums attract a lot of self torturing closet cases and men with doubts about thier own masculinity - 20 (28.2%)
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 15 (21.1%)
Total Voters: 71

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread  (Read 66382 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #765 on: November 09, 2009, 02:50:54 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
DISCLAIMER: I AM DEFEDNIG THE EO Church on this matther.

I really don't think that the EO Church will go down the Anglican path on this matter. Opposing homosexual sex is very strongly entrenched in her Tradition.

Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'. This to me is a death sentence. Remember, in Orthodoxy if the 'people' reject the hierarchy then the hierarchy has no power.
We have similar problems with liberal in our own communion. Yet our Church stands firm on the truth on this matter. Can the EO Church not do the same?

Somebody isn't reading the jurisdictional  information under the avatars   Smiley The Gay Man who is defending Gay Marriage is Catholic with a bit of support from an Anglican.. The Orthodox poster who strongly supports Gay Marriage often takes contrarian  positions ( including Holocaust denial no less) so I don't think his views are representative.


http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #766 on: November 09, 2009, 02:54:24 PM »


Somebody isn't reading the jurisdictional  information under the avatars   Smiley The Gay Man who is defending Gay Marriage is Catholic with a bit of support from an Anglican.. The Orthodox poster who strongly supports Gay Marriage often takes contrarian  positions ( including Holocaust denial no less) so I don't think his views are representative.


http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448

Grace and Peace,

You appear to be standing 'alone' with two Papists my Russian friend...  Undecided

The Church's teaching is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

It's pretty clear for us that this is the teaching of the Roman Church.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 02:59:11 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #767 on: November 09, 2009, 02:55:44 PM »



Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'.

Your proof that the EO laity are calling for homosexual marriages is............ ?  Yes, there are a few very vocal posters supporting this idea on the internet.  Others have become exhausted with this topic on OCnet, but that doesn't mean they support
gay marriage.  Smiley
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 02:56:38 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #768 on: November 09, 2009, 02:58:01 PM »



Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'.

Your proof that the EO laity are calling for homosexual marriages is............ ?  Yes, there are a few very vocal posters supporting this idea on the internet.  Others have become exhausted with this topic on OCnet, but that doesn't mean they support
gay marriage.  Smiley

Just remember 'By Silence' we also participate in another's sin.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #769 on: November 09, 2009, 03:02:33 PM »

Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'. This to me is a death sentence. Remember, in Orthodoxy if the 'people' reject the hierarchy then the hierarchy has no power.

?
I have seen 2 'EO Church laity' + one catachumen + one inquirer questioning the teaching/practice of the Church--and the first 2 at least have indicated that even though they disagree with it and want it to change, so long as it does not, they submit to the authority of the Church. I have seen far more than 3 laity pushing back in defense of the Traditional teaching and practice.

Orthodoxy has been in direct contact with 'secular moral criticism' for quite some time now. And there is no indication that it is tilting much less 'caving'. What you see as passivity has more to do with the fact that the teaching of the Church is not changing. Therefore many people simply have other fish to fry.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,519



WWW
« Reply #770 on: November 09, 2009, 03:03:29 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing

?

What are you referring to?  What makes you think that Orthodoxy would EVER support Homosexual behavior?

It has not, it does not, nor will it.

The fact that "some" individuals wish it would, does not make it so.

Therefore, relax.  The Orthodox Church is not caving in.  

We are here to the very End.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #771 on: November 09, 2009, 03:05:56 PM »



Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'.

Your proof that the EO laity are calling for homosexual marriages is............ ?  Yes, there are a few very vocal posters supporting this idea on the internet.  Others have become exhausted with this topic on OCnet, but that doesn't mean they support
gay marriage.  Smiley

Just remember 'By Silence' we also participate in another's sin.

Or perhaps people know that they do not want to arouse their passions (in a spiritual AND emotional sense) by engaging in YET ANOTHER THREAD ON THE INTERNET about homosexuality that never does anything other than allow people to stroke their own respective egos about how progressive or steadfast to the faith they are.

Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) is not lived on the internet, but in real life. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #772 on: November 09, 2009, 03:54:35 PM »



Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'.

Your proof that the EO laity are calling for homosexual marriages is............ ?  Yes, there are a few very vocal posters supporting this idea on the internet.  Others have become exhausted with this topic on OCnet, but that doesn't mean they support
gay marriage.  Smiley

Just remember 'By Silence' we also participate in another's sin.

Or perhaps people know that they do not want to arouse their passions (in a spiritual AND emotional sense) by engaging in YET ANOTHER THREAD ON THE INTERNET about homosexuality that never does anything other than allow people to stroke their own respective egos about how progressive or steadfast to the faith they are.

Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) is not lived on the internet, but in real life. 

Good points. It seems to me that there is a big difference between "netodoxy" and Orthodoxy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #773 on: November 09, 2009, 04:23:40 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
And you would judge the whole of the Orthodox Church by those minuscule few who choose to post on an Internet discussion board?  Don't you think that's a slightly unfair generalization?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #774 on: November 09, 2009, 04:24:25 PM »

Most popular thread ever.  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #775 on: November 09, 2009, 04:26:22 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #776 on: November 09, 2009, 04:30:03 PM »



Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'.

Your proof that the EO laity are calling for homosexual marriages is............ ?  Yes, there are a few very vocal posters supporting this idea on the internet.  Others have become exhausted with this topic on OCnet, but that doesn't mean they support
gay marriage.  Smiley

Just remember 'By Silence' we also participate in another's sin.

Or perhaps people know that they do not want to arouse their passions (in a spiritual AND emotional sense) by engaging in YET ANOTHER THREAD ON THE INTERNET about homosexuality that never does anything other than allow people to stroke their own respective egos about how progressive or steadfast to the faith they are.

Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) is not lived on the internet, but in real life. 

I understand that this thread is rehashing many of the same old arguments and it must get boring and maybe even upsetting for people who've seen it all before to participate. But these questions are new to every new person who encounters them for the first time. Reading someone else's thread, however good, will never give you precisely the same sense of what the argument looks like and how you fit into it.

Trust me on this one - my views are constantly shifting as I carry on reading new threads here, but when I read older threads, I don't find they penetrate quite so much.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #777 on: November 09, 2009, 04:34:36 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
I think the way you are framing this discussion is ridiculous. Just because some people disagree with Marat does not mean that they do not like Marat. Your posts continue to descend further and further into absurdity.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:44:11 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #778 on: November 09, 2009, 04:40:47 PM »


Somebody isn't reading the jurisdictional  information under the avatars   Smiley The Gay Man who is defending Gay Marriage is Catholic with a bit of support from an Anglican.. The Orthodox poster who strongly supports Gay Marriage often takes contrarian  positions ( including Holocaust denial no less) so I don't think his views are representative.


http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448

Grace and Peace,

You appear to be standing 'alone' with two Papists my Russian friend...  Undecided

The Church's teaching is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

It's pretty clear for us that this is the teaching of the Roman Church.

1.How do you believe this differs from Orthodox Christian beliefs?

2.How do you explain the scandals outlined in the book I linked you to: "Goodbye Good Men", if your teachings are so clear? Do you think the Orthodox have seminaries that cater to Gay Men like you have? I'm wondering how your strict words account for the total lack of strictness in practice by your Church. Talk is cheap.

Oh and, I'm not Russian.. Are you from Rome?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #779 on: November 09, 2009, 04:42:25 PM »

The recent posts on the politics of gay marriage (e.g., discussion of whether President Obama supports gay marriage) have been split off and moved to this thread on the Politics board:  The Politics of Gay Marriage.  If you wish to follow this private discussion, please PM Fr. Chris a request that he grant you access to the private boards.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:42:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #780 on: November 09, 2009, 04:43:40 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
I think the way you are framing this discussion is ridiculous. Just because some people disagree with Marat does not mean that they do not like Marat. Your post continue to descend further and further into absurdity.

... There is no personal dislike going on here. Straw man arguments are always pretty transparent. The are the refuge of people with weak arguments.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:46:24 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #781 on: November 09, 2009, 04:46:53 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
I think the way you are framing this discussion is ridiculous. Just because some people disagree with Marat does not mean that they do not like Marat. Your post continue to descend further and further into absurdity.

Wow..Papist woke up cranky... There is no personal dislike going on here. Straw man arguments are always pretty transparent.
If I misread the post I apologize.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #782 on: November 09, 2009, 04:54:12 PM »

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot.

Yes, where do we get the notion that monogamy is the best and only form of Christian marriage? Why not polygamy? Or better yet, polyandry! I could use a couple of more husbands myself, particularly a handyman and an auto mechanic.

I don't believe I cast a vote. I just pointed out that if you dismiss the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman you open Pandora's box........... as it were.

However, I work in an office with ten women and no men except for me. From this experience I can definitely say that polygamy is a really bad idea.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #783 on: November 09, 2009, 04:57:14 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
I think the way you are framing this discussion is ridiculous. Just because some people disagree with Marat does not mean that they do not like Marat. Your post continue to descend further and further into absurdity.

Wow..Papist woke up cranky... There is no personal dislike going on here. Straw man arguments are always pretty transparent.
If I misread the post I apologize.

No, no.. I misread the post and then modified what I wrote.. you read it before I made the changes...

Okay..Everybody back to work and stop hanging on the computer .
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #784 on: November 09, 2009, 04:57:35 PM »

To the Catholic posters on this thread (i.e., Ignatius, Papist, Marat, et al.):  please take a moment to return to the redirection message I left behind on Faith Issues to get a feel for the concern that prompted me to move this thread.  Thank you.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24267.0.html
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #785 on: November 09, 2009, 05:02:56 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
I think the way you are framing this discussion is ridiculous. Just because some people disagree with Marat does not mean that they do not like Marat. Your post continue to descend further and further into absurdity.

... There is no personal dislike going on here. Straw man arguments are always pretty transparent. The are the refuge of people with weak arguments.

Of course, the point of my post obviously wasn't to make an argument...weak, strong, or otherwise.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #786 on: November 09, 2009, 05:05:46 PM »

To the Catholic posters on this thread (i.e., Ignatius, Papist, Marat, et al.):  please take a moment to return to the redirection message I left behind on Faith Issues to get a feel for the concern that prompted me to move this thread.  Thank you.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24267.0.html


These are topics that effect 'all of us' which is the only reason I posted. I can appreciate Orthodox having the right to post on topics with the freedom to be just amongst themselves. Pardon me if our presence in the discussion caused a problem. As someone who is looking at Orthodoxy, I take some of these topics very seriously. Mea Culpa.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #787 on: November 09, 2009, 05:08:30 PM »

To the Catholic posters on this thread (i.e., Ignatius, Papist, Marat, et al.):  please take a moment to return to the redirection message I left behind on Faith Issues to get a feel for the concern that prompted me to move this thread.  Thank you.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24267.0.html

I do apologize if I am breaking the forum rules. I genuinely want to know, is it inappropriate for me to defend the current EO teaching?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 05:09:24 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #788 on: November 09, 2009, 05:08:53 PM »

To the Catholic posters on this thread (i.e., Ignatius, Papist, Marat, et al.):  please take a moment to return to the redirection message I left behind on Faith Issues to get a feel for the concern that prompted me to move this thread.  Thank you.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24267.0.html


These are topics that effect 'all of us' which is the only reason I posted. I can appreciate Orthodox having the right to post on topics with the freedom to be just amongst themselves. Pardon me if our presence in the discussion caused a problem. As someone who is looking at Orthodoxy, I take some of these topics very seriously.
As well you should, which is why I thought it best to allow you more freedom to post by moving this thread. Wink

Mea Culpa.
All is forgiven. Smiley
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #789 on: November 09, 2009, 05:09:51 PM »

Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.

He is not for it only because it is not politically favorable to him to be for it. He is a politician through and through. The same as all other politicians. I wish they had more noble reasons such as standing up and voting for what they truly believed it. I don't believe that is happening though.

I am not sure any of us knows what his personal opinion is. What we know for sure is that he does not back Gay Marriage.

And yes, the altering of the institution of marriage is wildly unpopular among his constituents who are Democrats, not conservative Republicans.  Any way you want to cut it...

Wildly unpopular is a bit of an overstatement. It sounds more like your opinion. I cannot find numbers but consider the recent election in Maine. 53% to 47% would not qualify as "wildly unpopular" to me. That is the overall percentage. I'm sure the support is higher among progressives.

No, we don't know Obama's personal opinion. In fact, that was the point of my post. Politicians are similar to actors. They play a part in order to advance their careers. His personal opinion is actually quite irrelevant.

This is getting into politics so I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

The proposal in California was crushed, a State with an actual population.

You are waffling about Obama.. He does not support your position... Period...Fini... The End.. The rest is your own wishful projection.

Perhaps we should have a vote on a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... What do you think the odds are that Gay Marriage would pass... ? I think the odds would be slim to none.

People feel that the Family is under assult. The Family Unit is the basis of Western Society. It has already been damaged by any number of things. To then further devalue it by fundamentally changing what is meant by marriage, is not good.

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot. It seems to match your prerequisites and go one or two better. What kind of a hypocrite would you be to pad your own nest but deny them?

I chose Maine because it is the most recent.

I didn't waffle on Obama. I stated the same thing I did earlier. You didn't get it then and it looks like you don't now either.

I'm fine with polygamy actually. It didn't bother me when I was Mormon either.

If there is such overwhelming support for banning gay marriage, why hasn't a constitutional amendment been passed, or even proposed? The support isn't as overwhelming as you portray it.

Apparently my being Catholic is troubling to some. My opinion shouldn't count or something. I rarely posted before and I will not be posting again. Enjoy your board. I have learned much here, both about actual doctrine and fruits of such doctrine.

Marat,

There is certainly a reactionary fringe element to this board, but also a progressive 'fringe' element to help offset it. Wink I know you probably felt attacked here, but you shouldn't take it too hard...there are several people who agree with you, the only reason we don't jump into every debate (though we do get involved in a lot of them) is because it's just rehashing the same arguments we've all seen a thousand times before. Unfortunately there is, ultimately, little you can do to convince people that prejudice and bigotry are wrong when they believe God has given them permission to act in this manner against their fellow human beings.

There will always be some people on this board who just don't like you, but there are others of us who believe your opinions and input are important and are glad to have you around.
Hear hear!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Vocatio
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 30



« Reply #790 on: November 09, 2009, 05:14:16 PM »

Don't we thus spit in the face, humiliate, dehumanize millions and millions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, impose on them something that as few of them can bear (i.e. lifelong chastity) as as few of us heterosexuals can bear?
Uh, life-long chastity is what heterosexual marriage is all about. If you mean "celibacy", then that's a different issue.

Yes, of course, lifelong celibacy. Sorry, English is not my first language.
At least you have a first language superior to mine.... Mine is ignorance.
Logged

\"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.\"  St. Ignatius of Antioch
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #791 on: November 09, 2009, 05:22:17 PM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago.

I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things.

I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.
I think the fact that the Church viewed slavery as acceptable and now would not shows that moral attitudes in the Church can change rather than being an analogy for attitudes towards homosexuality.
But you are right, the changing attitudes to suicide as the Church gets more information (about mental illness etc) is a better example. Here in Australia, any doctor faced with a patient who contemplates, threatens or attempts suicide is duty bound to schedule the patient as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act as either "Mentally Disordered" or "Mentally Ill". Like Asteriktos said, this means that everyone who suicides is mentally ill (at least in Australia).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #792 on: November 09, 2009, 07:29:18 PM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago.

I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things.

I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.
I think the fact that the Church viewed slavery as acceptable and now would not shows that moral
attitudes in the Church can change
rather than being an analogy for attitudes towards homosexuality.

So you agree with me here? That we cannot take the argument re. slavery as a valid analogy for homosexuality? Forgive me for asking - there's so much hidden meaning in this thread that I am not quite sure if that's what you're saying.

Quote
But you are right, the changing attitudes to suicide as the Church gets more information (about mental illness etc) is a better example. Here in Australia, any doctor faced with a patient who contemplates, threatens or attempts suicide is duty bound to schedule the patient as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act as either "Mentally Disordered" or "Mentally Ill". Like Asteriktos said, this means that everyone who suicides is mentally ill (at least in Australia).
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,129


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #793 on: November 09, 2009, 07:30:11 PM »

Don't we thus spit in the face, humiliate, dehumanize millions and millions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, impose on them something that as few of them can bear (i.e. lifelong chastity) as as few of us heterosexuals can bear?
Uh, life-long chastity is what heterosexual marriage is all about. If you mean "celibacy", then that's a different issue.

Yes, of course, lifelong celibacy. Sorry, English is not my first language.
At least you have a first language superior to mine.... Mine is ignorance.
Awesome Avatar.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #794 on: November 09, 2009, 07:35:11 PM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago.

I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things.

I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.
I think the fact that the Church viewed slavery as acceptable and now would not shows that moral
attitudes in the Church can change
rather than being an analogy for attitudes towards homosexuality.

So you agree with me here? That we cannot take the argument re. slavery as a valid analogy for homosexuality? Forgive me for asking - there's so much hidden meaning in this thread that I am not quite sure if that's what you're saying.
Yes. I'm agreeing with you that there is no analogy. But I think there is a precedent in terms of changing moral attitudes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #795 on: November 09, 2009, 07:43:00 PM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago.

I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things.

I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.
I think the fact that the Church viewed slavery as acceptable and now would not shows that moral
attitudes in the Church can change
rather than being an analogy for attitudes towards homosexuality.

So you agree with me here? That we cannot take the argument re. slavery as a valid analogy for homosexuality? Forgive me for asking - there's so much hidden meaning in this thread that I am not quite sure if that's what you're saying.
Yes. I'm agreeing with you that there is no analogy. But I think there is a precedent in terms of changing moral attitudes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

No, it's my fault. I'm not good at interpreting online-speak. But I agree: moral attitudes do change.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #796 on: November 09, 2009, 08:04:41 PM »

Liz,

Quote
Can I ask a terminology question? Is the Gay Movement in the US something like Stonewall here in Britain?

I must admit that I had to look up "Stonewall Britain" on Google to get an idea of what exactly that was. Smiley The gay movement (or GLBT movement) does seem to be like the Stonewall thing, if by that you mean an organized effort to fight for certain rights for people with a minority sexual orientation/identification (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender). However, "Gay Movement" does not, so far as I know, describe an actual organization, but rather just refers to the gay rights movement in general. I'm not familiar with the history or methods of Stonewall, so it's hard for me to say much more than that.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #797 on: November 10, 2009, 12:03:35 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

From what I can tell, the Church accepts that some people have same sex attraction. They don't seem to care much about that. I think the idea that the Church is "against" Homosexuality is not the best way to frame the situation.

I think the Church is FOR Marriage. I don't think they will every not be for Marriage.  Marriage has a particular image in the Church of being between One Man and One Women.. Not one man and three women, not two men, not two women...  Nothing will ever "evolve" past this understanding of this essential Truth.

So rather than this being like Slavery the better analogy would be if the Sate of Maryland decided to change it's name to "Uganda" in order to take advantage of foreign Aide. It's not the Truth. Maryland is not Uganda, even though the citizens of Maryland would benefit from extra Aide. Talking about all the wonderful things that could be done with that Aide is a distraction from the central point that Maryland ain't really Uganda.

 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #798 on: November 10, 2009, 12:46:52 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 12:47:52 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #799 on: November 10, 2009, 01:08:26 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.

Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #800 on: November 10, 2009, 01:34:06 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.

Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #801 on: November 10, 2009, 02:33:15 PM »

THe real point is that Marriage is a Sacrament, and was instituted by God himself, as with the other Sacraments. As such, it's not open to redefinition. No analogy applies here, whether it's slavery or any other moral example.

There is a guy at my parish who is homosexual. It opened my mind to actually know someone who struggles with their sexuality. I can understand how difficult it is. I was once very prejudiced but have come to empathize a great deal. It's hard afterwards to look at them and say "those people". I believe he has the best and most balanced way of approaching it that I've seen.

It should be said that sexual orientation (heterosexuality/homosexuality) is different from sexual activity. The former describes who someone is innately attracted to. I don't know if it's a mental problem or not, but there is by and large no control over it, any more than a person chooses what flowers they think smell good. It is what it is. The latter refers to what they then do with their attractions, and that's what the Church speaks to. It's important to make that distinction.

My friend would like to have a relationship with another man, but knows the Church doesn't bless that, because marriage is a Sacrament. He must die to his own desires and learn to find that fulfillment in God. That's what we're all called to do.

A Christian is first and foremost called to holiness, not happiness. Someone may desire to get drunk, or use drugs, or eat too much, or pleasure themselves, or have homosexual sex, or any number of things, but the Church will not bless it. No Christian should weasel a way to fulfill his own desires. Life is either more and more about oneself, or more and more about God and others.

This goes to the Church's reasoning behind the issue, from what I understand - that a homosexual relationship cannot produce children (also the reason for prohibiting contraception). Sex can either be selfish or selfless. If it's just for pleasure, it's selfish and therefore wrong. If it's for continuing Creation, it's selfless and therefore good.

THere's much more to it than some ancient heterosexual men saying "that's disgusting." Sometimes advocates of gay marriage in the Church present it that way, and it's not true. It's about the relationships with God, ourselves, and Creation.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #802 on: November 10, 2009, 02:41:22 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #803 on: November 10, 2009, 02:45:22 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #804 on: November 10, 2009, 02:53:01 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.

Thank you...at least someone got my point. Wink What makes the position prejudice is the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion, the conclusion itself may be considered bigoted or derogatory, but prejudice refers more to methodology. All I'm asking here is that someone objectively investigate the matter for themselves and not 'rely' on any 'advice'. As someone who has taken it upon himself to question all advice that was given and who, as a result, changed their views by 180 degrees, I suspect that this approach would lead to a more tolerant outlook; but maybe that was just me. If you honestly question all your preconceived notions, are able to step back and approach this issue from a fresh new objective perspective fully informed by the knowledge of our day, and still arrive at the same conclusions, I would be much more accepting of your position; but as far as I can tell, no one here has actually done that.

In the end, all I'm asking you to do is to put in the effort required to think for yourself and not allow other people to do your thinking for you; honestly, is that an unreasonable request?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 02:54:06 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #805 on: November 10, 2009, 02:54:23 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.

Really?.. I cant imagine how you drew that conclusion from anything I have said.

I did say that it is wise to draw on the Church based on it's long experience and also the good results it has achieved producing Saints.... I don't think I got anywhere close to implying that the Church can't be questioned.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,492


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #806 on: November 10, 2009, 02:59:29 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.

Thank you...at least someone got my point. Wink What makes the position prejudice is the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion, the conclusion itself may be considered bigoted or derogatory, but prejudice refers more to methodology. All I'm asking here is that someone objectively investigate the matter for themselves and not 'rely' on any 'advice'. As someone who has taken it upon himself to question all advice that was given and who, as a result, changed their views by 180 degrees, I suspect that this approach would lead to a more tolerant outlook; but maybe that was just me. If you honestly question all your preconceived notions, are able to step back and approach this issue from a fresh new objective perspective fully informed by the knowledge of our day, and still arrive at the same conclusions, I would be much more accepting of your position; but as far as I can tell, no one here has actually done that.

In the end, all I'm asking you to do is to put in the effort required to think for yourself and not allow other people to do your thinking for you; honestly, is that an unreasonable request?

So... you believe that I don't understand the "knowlege of the day" and therefore would change my idea's about Gay Marriage if I did ?.. I just want to make certain I am hearing you correctly.

I think that is a pretty nervy thing to say..
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #807 on: November 10, 2009, 03:11:28 PM »

I am having a hard time understanding the point about how the changes in attitude about Slavery is like how attitudes may change about Homosexuality.

I think we are mixing up social and cultural attitudes and prejudices with the World View of the Church.

No, we're not mixing up anything. Just saying that your personal opinion about what your church believes in this matter IS prejudice. It's a simple matter of truth, you might want to justify this prejudice by saying that god told you it was ok...but it's still prejudice.

Say what?

I am pretty darn certain that the Orthodox Church does not allow marriage between same sex couples. I am also equally certain the Mariage is pretty important to them.

FYI, they also have a good idea about what is spiritually beneficial for people by long years of practice. It's like trusting a Mathematics Professor with long years of experience and numerous achievements and awards versus an undergraduate math major.. The new student may have some deep insights but in most matters , I will go with experience.

You'd be a fool to 'trust' either the undergrad or the professor, no matter how distinguished. The validity of a mathematical theorem is based solely on the validity of the proof, the distinction of the person presenting it is utterly irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.

Quote
One thing I have learned about the Orthodox Church is that they are eminently reasonable.


Picking a choosing who you will side with or depend upon can be characterized as "Prejudice". I chose this over that. But it has a pejorative implication. Yes, I chose the Church and you don't. We are prejudiced both for and against something when we decide who to side with. So what?

Prejudice is not 'chos[ing] this over that', prejudice is judging an issue based on preconceived ideas and failing to consider all the facts. The mere fact that the church's position was formed without the understanding of modern biology and psychology implies that it is, necessarily, prejudiced.

okay.. a History Professor then....[[sigh]]

Okay..I think you are correct..Then this is not a case of prejudice. It is merely relying on the advice of the Church based on the good results they have achieved in forming Saints. Biology has nothing at all to do with the matter because the Church already accepts the fact of same sex attraction. This is not news Smiley
They promote marriage for various reasons. They are unlikely to stop promoting marriage, the biology of same sex attraction is not relevant to that decision..

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.

Thank you...at least someone got my point. Wink What makes the position prejudice is the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion, the conclusion itself may be considered bigoted or derogatory, but prejudice refers more to methodology. All I'm asking here is that someone objectively investigate the matter for themselves and not 'rely' on any 'advice'. As someone who has taken it upon himself to question all advice that was given and who, as a result, changed their views by 180 degrees, I suspect that this approach would lead to a more tolerant outlook; but maybe that was just me. If you honestly question all your preconceived notions, are able to step back and approach this issue from a fresh new objective perspective fully informed by the knowledge of our day, and still arrive at the same conclusions, I would be much more accepting of your position; but as far as I can tell, no one here has actually done that.

In the end, all I'm asking you to do is to put in the effort required to think for yourself and not allow other people to do your thinking for you; honestly, is that an unreasonable request?

So... you believe that I don't understand the "knowlege of the day" and therefore would change my idea's about Gay Marriage if I did ?.. I just want to make certain I am hearing you correctly.

I think that is a pretty nervy thing to say..

Not at all, what I'm saying is that based on your posts here, it doesn't seem that you have honestly challenged your preconceived notions and this observation is not so much based on your conclusions as it is on your arguments. To do this, one honestly has to, at one point, find themselves honestly not knowing what the right answer is...which is never an easy place to be.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #808 on: November 10, 2009, 03:18:17 PM »

I don't think GiC's point was the quibble you seem to think. My impression was that you saw the Church's authority as being of a different kind from the passing fads and new interpretations you get in other kinds of study and learning. One is meant to question one's teachers, no matter what they teach: in your view, if I understand correctly, the point is that one is not meant to question the authority of the Church.

Anything can be questioned--including the authority of the Church or God Himself. But the critical point is what one does when one doesn't like the answers received, on what grounds one can reject answers.

To take an example from a completely different direction: the theory of evolution is essentially universally accepted by scientists. I can still question the theory--and science itself is fine with that process of questioning. But if I don't like the answer 'man descends from primates', on what basis can I reject it? Possibly the process of questioning leads to a whole new scientific theory which can be judged against evolution on the basis of scientific evidence--it's pretty unlikely but it's at least possible. Or I can just say, "I don't like that answer, it doesn't feel right, I don't 'feel' like I'm descended from primates, I don't have evidence for a competing theory but I'll just assume one exists"--as a free-willed human being, that's my right. But if I do that I am not simply rejecting evolution--I'm also rejecting the underlying epistemology. I can do it, but I can't call myself a 'scientist' or claim that my thought-processes or my replacement ideas are 'scientific'.

So one can certainly question the Tradition or the authority of the Church, you can question the Revelation--but then you have to live with the answers you get. You can reject those answers, but if you reject them for reasons that are external to Tradition and the Revelation--because you don't like the answers, because they make your life more difficult, because they don't agree with Buddhism or neopaganism or the Republican partyline, then you can't claim that your rejection, your thought-process, or your alternate choices are 'Orthodox'; or relevant to those who accept the Revelatory epistemology of the Church.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,187



« Reply #809 on: November 10, 2009, 03:18:34 PM »

...objectively investigate the matter for themselves and not 'rely' on any 'advice'. As someone who has taken it upon himself to question all advice that was given and who, as a result, changed their views by 180 degrees, I suspect that this approach would lead to a more tolerant outlook; but maybe that was just me. If you honestly question all your preconceived notions, are able to step back and approach this issue from a fresh new objective perspective fully informed by the knowledge of our day, and still arrive at the same conclusions, I would be much more accepting of your position; but as far as I can tell, no one here has actually done that.

In the end, all I'm asking you to do is to put in the effort required to think for yourself and not allow other people to do your thinking for you; honestly, is that an unreasonable request?

What's unreasonable, IMHO, is for you to assume that people who disagree with you have not thought for themselves or investigated the issue.

Of course, you will have to take my word that I have done all that you have suggested, and I have indeed changed my thinking 180 degrees. Oddly enough, I came to a totally different conclusion, opposite to what you appear to consider enlightened, and unprejudiced.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Tags: homosexuality 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 74 queries.