gavaisky said:
As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.
Sure. Here is the post which I believe is in question:
The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful. I think Orthodox pastors are generally awakening to the understanding that it is not something to be switched on or off. We don't pick all our temptations, but we can choose how to respond to them. In this scenario, the Church is called to accept these people lovingly and aid them in their spiritual struggle, counseling them to celibacy. I think such an attitude is workable without the virulent homophobia that singles this sin out as the downfall of civilization. I myself have taken and struggled with this conception.
However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.
I'm guessing that Mor and Mina would agree more or less with the first paragraph but not the second. I don't think there is any grounds of accusing them of siding with me on that part. I think what basically unites us is the general principle of "don't be a jerk" on this issue, but for the second paragraph, I am only speaking for myself.
My experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening to gay couples, whether childless or with adopted children, tells me that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit," most especially love.
Of course I am aware of the usual scriptural texts invoked on this question, from Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc. I call them "historically hazy" because of the numerous linguistic, historical, and cultural issues raised in various debates by scholars as to the precise way to understand these passages. They seem to be bound up with polytheism, pederasty, and other things which do not seem to be inherently bound up in modern gay relationships.
For instance, if we follow Saint Paul's reasoning in Romans, we are looking at an unnatural lust which is introduced as a result of deifying created things. It's a punishment for idolatry, and in this Paul is really reproducing standard Jewish polemics against gentiles. This doesn't apply to those Christians, whether born into the Church or entering it voluntarily, who struggle with same-sex desire, and, no matter how fervently they worship the true God, do not acquire "natural" heterosexual urges. Even many of those who think of homosexuality as inherently sinful have acknowledged the failure of conversion therapy and "pray the gay away" and frame it more in terms of a lifelong cross to be carried, which brings it well outside of what Saint Paul is talking about.
So this is why I say that, when I am confronted with a loving gay couple- particularly a Christian one- I cannot in good conscience say, "You're sinning, your relationship is unwholesome" because the evidence before my eyes tells me that is not true, and the evidence from Church tradition is quite murky as to how and where the famous injunctions really apply.