Topic: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?

[DavidH]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

[Feanor]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.

[Feanor]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.

In Christ's name, amen.

[DavidH]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.

I am trying to understand your position rather than simply being argumentative so here is my question:

If the Scriptures clearly tell us to love one another and even approve of loving friendships (e.g. David and Jonathan),
And the Scriptures clearly tell us that sexualizing certain relationships is wrong (e.g. incest and homosexuality),
And the Scriptures are God's revelation of how we ought to live,
And the Church is the authorized interpreter of those Scriptures with an unbroken tradition that does not allow these sort of relationships,
By what authority can we justify them?

 A person who holds the traditional CAN be bigoted if he singles out certain sins for special dissapproval but holding the traditional view seems to me to be the only way to be faithful to God's revelation of His will.
 Of course, people can and do disagree with the authority of the Scriptures and the Church but does that not place our opinions outside of both?
 

In Christ's name, amen.

[Fr. George]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.  

If you are Christ, then that's up to you.  If not, I wouldn't suggest it.

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Yes.  But it is not necessarily marriage.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.  

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

[minasoliman]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

I don't think one needs marriage to have real and genuine love between two people.  Aren't we to love our neighbors as ourselves?  This is a Christian duty, not a thing born out of marriage.  Yes, marriage has that concept, but I think many agree that marriage is what allows for eros love to exist between two.

When one argues that homosexuality is a sin, one is not saying you're not allowed to love one another.  By all means, if a union between ANY two strengthens one's "storge, philia, and agape" then I support such a union.  But I think those who are arguing on the position that homosexual acts are sins are saying that the "eros" is wrong.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.

Absolutely, but for some of us this transcending can be done in the context of marriage OR in the context of celibacy; for others, it is SAID to be possible ONLY in the context of celibacy. And the latter presumes that the group on whom celibacy is imposed (homosexuals) will BY DEFINITION (made by whom, and based on what evidence, other than lines from Scripture interpreted according to the conventional majority prejudicial views?) do something horrible if they marry with one another.

Well, I don't know whether celibacy is imposed upon homosexuals.  If however two homosexual people can unite and help one another obtain theosis and aid in avoiding the eros of one another, then I don't mind them in unity.  Perhaps, the Church should consecrate such unions then.  Are churches that do have gay marriages (like the Anglican Church) saying that eros is not allowed within such a marriage?  That would be interesting, and would probably lead me to say, why are we then condemning them?

There are also communal ways of reaching theosis.  To have a partner, whether it be a sibling or a friend, not just a spouse, can help too.

But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.

Me too, and I very passionately believe that no one can, be him a bishop or a patriarch or even a council of bishops and patriarchs - it is simply impossible. That belief of mine annuls all claims, made by whoever and on whatever ground, tha gays cannot marry because their sex is "unnatural" and thus wrong.

I can't really say that just because I love them doesn't mean I can't say it's wrong.  I'm saying I can't judge you because I also do wrong things.

Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

More importantly, I think this is hammered out enough.  Perhaps, we should look at the arguments of other churches that argue that homosexuality is not a sin.  I think those are more interesting to talk about.  This is the documentary I watched that I was talking about where Christians take a "pro-gay" interpretation of verses in the Bible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY

I'd like to read arguments about these nine videos.

God bless.

[minasoliman]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.

So there's then nothing morally wrong of marriage between siblings in your opinion?

[GiC]

Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

What's wrong with plural marriage (other than the fact that marriage, in and of itself, is an utterly absurd idea, if people love each other, why would they have to be kept together by the operation of law...but must be addressed because it has been used as a club for an egotistical social majority to bash social minorities and a basis of state-sponsored discrimination)?

But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.

[Fr. George]

But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.

Ahh, another supporter of incest.

[minasoliman]

Let's look at polygamy for instance.  Is it a choice?  Well, many animal kingdoms have harems.  It seems to be natural for some men in the world.  Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes.  And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens.  Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship.  Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one.  One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such.  Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others?  I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.

What's wrong with plural marriage (other than the fact that marriage, in and of itself, is an utterly absurd idea, if people love each other, why would they have to be kept together by the operation of law...but must be addressed because it has been used as a club for an egotistical social majority to bash social minorities and a basis of state-sponsored discrimination)?

But, more to the point, why should anyone care what consenting adults are doing with their genitals? This meddling in other people's personal lives just seems like the ultimate absurdity.

Marriage is a religious institution.  I agree that outside of religion, marriage is an absurd concept.

The meddling is also absurd.  But in a religion that allows such "meddling" only between one's consent with a caring priest, then that's their business.  But yes, outside the father of confession relationship (or staretz relationship), then you're right.

Which is why I think we should focus the discussion on what Christianity teaches exactly.

BTW, the Biblical arguments in the link I sent before start in part 3/9 of the video (the Lev. 20:13 argument).

God bless.

[ialmisry]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

Just curious: Would you say the same for a long-term loving relationship between a brother and sister? Or are there relationships which seem incredibly fulfilling between the partners which are still morally wrong? This isn't just a hypothetical, I know of a couple like this.

We have a knee-jerk reaction to incest, immediately thinking of it as gross, wrong, disgusting, etc. If we think harder about this, it becomes obvious why incestuous couples certainly should not reproduce, as incest often leads to genetic flaws in the offspring. For this reason I also believe that people with genetic issues which are likely to be passed-on should not have children. However, real love between two consenting adults who happen to be related... it's a different issue. In the case of reproduction, it is morally wrong for them to reproduce, for the genetic reasons and the consequences it would incur upon the child. However, if reproduction is outside the equation, it's different. I'm uncomfortable about it. I could never think of my sister that way. The idea makes me cringe. However, I can appreciate the inherent goodness and beauty which shines forth from all real love. When two people genuinely love each other, and are experiencing the miracle of freely-given mutual love, I see no reason to condemn. Love is love. When love genuinely occurs, it should be celebrated, never condemned. Love is mysterious, but never wrong.

Please understand the distinction between love and physical lust. I'm talking about the former and not the latter.

No, you are not.

Since you have played the emotional card, I will play mine: my older son has been diagonosed with a congenital degenerative kidney disease (and now may be diagnoses with a form of enemia as well now), which he inherited from his mother.  I have many reasons to second guess my marrying her, but this isn't one of them.  If I had known that he would have the disease, I still would have had him.  Btw, what do you think of Sara Palin having her kid,  was that "immoral," Herr Doktor Mengele? (Yeah, I know, Goodwin. Deal with it).

Let's assume that Jaycee Dugard's children
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57Q5L420090827
are wonderfully human beings and their mother loves them.  Are we therefore to conclude that kidnapping and rape is beautiful and wholly good?

I'm sure that you are saying "that's not the same..." Yes, it is: the same "all's well that ends well" excuse to validate anything and everything that meets a euphemeral and superficial judgement of "beautiful and wholly good."

Or let's say that Tiger Woods and his mistress(es) lasted for 20 years (such things do happen: I remember a case that lasted 60 years!)  Should we say that was "beautiful and wholly good?"  Why not?

I knew someone who married 9 times and his last wife, whom he told me he "finally got it right" was the mother of his first wife.  So his son had a grandmother as his stepmother and an aunt as his stepsister, and was the stepbrother of his mother.  No question of genetic problems there.  So should we celebrate this triumph of true love in the end?

So many vile things are done in the name of "love."  Your anecdotes do not change that.

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

[ialmisry]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

Forbidden fruit.

Wait, are you saying that people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex or choose to act on this attraction?

I am thinking more of those who act on what is chic.  And yes, such people exist.  And not rare.

[GiC]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

[ialmisry]

I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.

You must of missed the great Council of Nashville (I think that is where the publisher is HQed).  The Orthodox Study Bible footnotes were recognised as Holy Tradition.

Indeed they are, and accepted as such by many Orthodox.  More than most of what I have seen posted by Greeki and yourself on this topic.  Certainly more than John Boswell.

[ialmisry]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

[ialmisry]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.

I am afraid that you were taught wrong: many of the Fathers speak of the literate faithful who could afford the Scriptures (for most of the history of the Church, a distinct minority) had a moral duty to do so and read it.  The illiterate memorized.

[Heorhij]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

[ialmisry]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

And what are you going to do for the millions who never find their mate?  Mandate marriage? (don't laugh: it has been done and legislated).

[Papist]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

[Heorhij]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

That, as you should have noticed, I NEVER did. I am very much, very strongly for gay MARRIAGE blessed by the Church - monogamous, committed, lifelong, sacramental. Just to have homosexual relationships is not marriage and that's no different from me and some gal to whom I am not married to have sex.

[ialmisry]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

[Heorhij]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy. That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct. Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?), and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

[augustin717]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.

I am afraid that you were taught wrong: many of the Fathers speak of the literate faithful who could afford the Scriptures (for most of the history of the Church, a distinct minority) had a moral duty to do so and read it.  The illiterate memorized.

Well, I don't know. Our people-my grandparents, for instance- were told to not even touch the Bible. It was strictly the priest's business. They were threatened that, for instance-their hands will start shaking if they touched the bible. We  have a saying: "Incense is the priest's concern/business" (Grija popii de tamaie).
This is just to give a glimpse of a more traditional sort of Orthodoxy, unlike the one with Orthodox Study Bibles which, I think, is primarily meant to lure Protestants in. It is funny though, that -and I stand corrected here- to my knowledge, there is no Orthodox Study Bible in Serbia, in Greece, in Bulgaria, in Romania, in Russia, but there is one in America.

[Salpy]

Well, I don't know. Our people-my grandparents, for instance- were told to not even touch the Bible. It was strictly the priest's business. They were threatened that, for instance-their hands will start shaking if they touched the bible. We  have a saying: "Incense is the priest's concern/business" (Grija popii de tamaie).
This is just to give a glimpse of a more traditional sort of Orthodoxy, .

That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy.

[Fr. George]

There is something to be said for caution - reading the scripture without any guidance can be a dangerous thing spiritually.  However, history has witnessed ages when many of the lay faithful were very knowledgeable about the faith through study, discussion, etc.  That's why there were riots over dogma, and popular dissent with decisions of false synods.

[minasoliman]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy. That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct. Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?), and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

I agree with you here, that these arguments are absurd in a way.  But the only argument I personally hold on to is who says what is right and what is wrong?  I simply listen to the arguments of the pro-gay group and also find them to be not so much as they are absurd, but inconsistent, because these same arguments can be used on any other morally questionable issue.  (reminds me of watching "Thank You For Smoking" where the father teaches the son, that you can't prove that you're right, but rather you can prove that the other side is wrong.)

It is therefore this moral relativism outside of Christianity that I then find myself to accept Christian teachings because I believe in the truth of Christianity.  If it is a Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong, then I personally submit.

(btw, next Scriptural argument made in the videos start in part 6/9)

God bless.

[GiC]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.

[augustin717]

That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy

.
It's just the way Orthodoxy has been taught and practiced in many corners of the world up to the present day. I don't have any specific data, but I assume things should have not been that different in the vilayet of Van or the slopes of the Caucasus mountains.

[Salpy]

As Fr. George pointed out above, the Church has always had the faithful approach the scriptures with caution and guidance.  I think we've seen from the Protestant "just me and the Bible" approach that deriving your faith from your own interpretation of scripture can lead to heresy.

However, when I wrote what I did above, I was thinking of a Chalcedonian Desert Father, Abba Gelasius, who put a leather Bible in a church so that anyone could read it.  That would have been in the fifth century.  As Fr. George said, the faithful have traditionally been encouraged to be knowledgeable about the faith through study, discussion, etc.

The extreme attitude of not allowing the faithful to touch the Bible is just not supported by the examples of early Church Fathers.  At least not that I know of.  It's an extreme position, just as the Protestant approach is an extreme in the other direction.

[ialmisry]

Ahh, the arrogance of the enlightened to say that the Church's position is bigoted.

Perhaps. I prefer to be arrogant or to seem arrogant than to contribute into what I believe is a great sin - causing millions of innocent people to suffer terribly all their short earthly lives. I know too many of them and too many of those whose lives were ruined by them when they, yielding to the "wisdom" of the society, pretended to be who they were not.

Just to add some insight to this conversation: I have seen a greater sin, telling homosexuals that that's just the way they are and encouraging them to live a homosexual life style. I have watched it destroy the lives of hundreds of men that suffer from Same Sex Attraction. The gay life is a downward spiral.

God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you the way you are.

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.

[ialmisry]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.

Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?

[GiC]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.

Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?

Oh, despite my rejection of it, I'm sure I'm still more knowledgeable on the history of Christian doctrine than you are. Apostasy doesn't entail forgetting what you knew, it's just the ability to see it in a different light...often a more objective one.

But my point is that your analogy doesn't fit the Nicene doctrines of the Trinity.

[ialmisry]

Real and genuine love raditates the Union of the Trinity. Homosexual unions do not do that (nor divorce, adultery, fornication.....)

So true marriages are between three people?

I forgot: the uber-evolutionist never sees children in the icon of marriage.

I had just assumed that you didn't believe the Trinity was an authoritarian hierarchical structure. But I see you've converted to Arianism...forgive my assumption that you followed Nicene Christianity, I should have asked first.

Since you cannot speak as an authority of Nicene Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, you aren't making any sense, but I'll ask you anyways: what are you talking about?

Oh, despite my rejection of it, I'm sure I'm still more knowledgeable on the history of Christian doctrine than you are.

Yes, a chip on the shoulder always improves the eyesight.

No, I'm quite sure you would lose that bet.

Apostasy doesn't entail forgetting what you knew, it's just the ability to see it in a different light...often a more objective one.

or not.

But my point is that your analogy doesn't fit the Nicene doctrines of the Trinity.

The Fathers have made the analogy of the yoking of the couple to the yoking of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.  The woman has the same nature of the man as she processed out of his side, as the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the child has the same nature as the father, as he is begotten the same way the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

Hence "Let US make man in Our Image....MALE and FEMALE He made them."

[ialmisry]

That's not traditional Orthodoxy.  I don't know what that is, but it's not traditional Orthodoxy

.
It's just the way Orthodoxy has been taught and practiced in many corners of the world up to the present day. I don't have any specific data, but I assume things should have not been that different in the vilayet of Van or the slopes of the Caucasus mountains.

Ironically, the attitude doesn't show up in Orthodoxy until the arrival of the Protestants.

Patriarchate Dositheus of Jerusalem wrote the introdoucion of the Bibilia de la Bucuresti 1688, the first full Bible in Romanian (if you can, read the introduction, it speaks of the importance of the Bible in the vernacular, even so much as using Wulfinas as an example!).  When Athanasius was consecrated to the see of Sibiu (which he betrayed into the hands of the Vatican), Dositheus wrote a number of instructions: Although he forbids the DL in Romania (which Saguna says was because no authorized translation existed) he insists that the scripture reading and the sermon (which he says must be at every service) must be in the language the congregation speaks, and all interpretation must be in conformity with the Fathers.

The Orthodox in Transylvania had been playing the Vatican's favorites, the Hapsburgs, against the Calvinist Princes of Transylvania.  The hiearchy had accepted the Calvinist terms, which, ironically, required a Protestant catechism to be used by all the Faithful (ironic in that isn't sola scriptura) as a modus vivendi against the forces for submission to the Vatican.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=ZhjZAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Heorhij]

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

That's a rhetorical question. If I am straight and signle, and I meet someone whom I love and who loves me, I go ahead and marry, with the Church's blessing, sacramentally, for life. *OR* I choose to pursue my theosis in the state of celibacy. Isn't THAT different?

That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

If that was not you, I apologize. If it was you, then, again, I am sure you were joking.

Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

Yes, but in the case of St. John of Kronshtadt it did not, and the Church did not object. In the case of women without a womb (after hysterectomy), it can go in the keyhole all the time without opening any womb (cause there is nothing to open), and the Church, again, does not object...

and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

P.S. Dear mods, I am sorry, I am completely confused with the quotes - please fix, if possible. Thank you.

[Fr. George]

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.

[ialmisry]

And if you are gay, you CAN CHANGE the way you are (selfish, sinful, self-absorbed, self-aggrandazing etc.etc.etc.) ONLY in context of celibacy.

And this is different from you being heterosexual and single how?

That's a rhetorical question. If I am straight and signle, and I meet someone whom I love and who loves me, I go ahead and marry, with the Church's blessing, sacramentally, for life. *OR* I choose to pursue my theosis in the state of celibacy. Isn't THAT different?

No, it is not rhetorical.  Many who look do not find.

That's what we say - and WHY? The worst argument I heard was actually from you (and I hope you were joking): that if we allow homosexuals to have their sex, pretty soon they will recruit everyone into their lifestyle and the human race will become extinct.

Can you quote me?

If that was not you, I apologize. If it was you, then, again, I am sure you were joking.

You don't have to be sorry:I just can't respond without knowing exactly what was said.  Homosexuality does fail Kant's moral imperative this way.

Other arguments (which I heard, directly or indirectly, from the Orthodox clergy) sound a bit more rational, but are in fact as absurd: (1) because sex is "right" only when the key fits the keyhole (er, do they know that in most women their erogenous zone is not even in the "keyhole?),

But it has got to go into the keyhole from time to time to open her womb.

Yes, but in the case of St. John of Kronshtadt it did not, and the Church did not object.

Those who don't (and it is not universal) often are the same ones who say marriage is only for procreation.  I can't justify others' inconsistencies.

In the case of women without a womb (after hysterectomy), it can go in the keyhole all the time without opening any womb (cause there is nothing to open), and the Church, again, does not object...

Some do, but they are wrong.  St. John Chrysostom talks about childless couple, and affirms, as does the Church, that they are still a couple.

and (2) because sex is "right" only when it is between the two opposites, and a man and a man cannot be two opposites, and neither can be a woman and a woman. I don't understand any of that.

That they can't be complimentary? No, they can't at the level we are talking about.

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Oh, and one more argument, also from an Orthodox clergyman: because gays always use each other to satisfy their lust. That's why they have sex. Great argument.

well, they never can have it with each other to have children, which is part of the icon.

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

Plenty of wives with wombs do not have children, for whatever reason.  The exception that makes the rule. Homosexual "unions" know no such exception.

P.S. Dear mods, I am sorry, I am completely confused with the quotes - please fix, if possible. Thank you.

[Heorhij]

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Gebre,

I'm sorry if I confused you with what I wrote.  What you quoted is not something meant as if I would personally say it, but rather I was attempting to write what Christians who justify homosexuality do say.

I agree with you that not all who say homosexuality is wrong is necessarily homophobic.

God bless.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.

God bless you as well.

Selam

[ialmisry]

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

Except for Marais, who I remember as a kid in La belle et la bete, they were dead before I was talking or even born. So no.

You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

Actually just because I don't know the couples you name, doesn't mean I don't know any.  And yes, even the HOMOSEXUALS see it as role playing, and call it as such.  And yes, we know that they cannot be truly complimentary as male and female were made to be.

[Heorhij]

Many of them are. Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, apparently, were. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau, apparently, were.

Role playing doesn't cut it.

Why are YOU so sure it was role playing? Have you asked THEM?

Except for Marais, who I remember as a kid in La belle et la bete, they were dead before I was talking or even born. So no.

You see, that's the whole point of my position in this issue... We, heterosexuals, presume that we KNOW something about homosexuals. We presume that we KNOW that they cannot be truly complimentary because they aren't like the key and the keyhole, and we presume that we KNOW that they just pretend, role-play...

Actually just because I don't know the couples you name, doesn't mean I don't know any.  And yes, even the HOMOSEXUALS see it as role playing, and call it as such.  And yes, we know that they cannot be truly complimentary as male and female were made to be.

I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple. He met his love when he was in his 20-s, now he is in his 50-s and he says that there is no one else in the world for him. He calls his partner "wife," and his partner calls him "husband." He says that everything written in Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 ("My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun...") precisely applies to what he feels about his partner.  

[Fr. George]

I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.

[DavidH]

It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

[ialmisry]

I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.

LOL.  Touché.

[minasoliman]

Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.