Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread

[Rastaman]

Funerals in the case of suicide are based on economia. Bishops are able to authorize funerals in certain cases, often in order to aid the family in the grieving process. That is an issue entirely from samesex marriage.

And that said, gay individuals are more than capable of working out their own salvation as celibate individuals. It's a cross to bear, that is all. We all have crosses, life is rough.

 

[Sinner Servant]

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.

IMHO, I do not know how you can think that the Church will change Her teaching on this topic. Scripture and Tradition are clearly in conflict with your OPINION.

Also, I think that you sre looking for earthly justice in you argumentation for Gays. Christ did not come to give earthly justice but of Hope in the next life; see the Beattitudes.  Instead of seeking justice, accept God's will that Gays are perhaps called to endure and stuggle more for salvation. It may seem unfair but God gives to who He wants and how He wants: See the below parable about the Kingdom of Heaven and the housholder.

1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

2And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

3And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

4And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

5Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

6And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

7They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

8So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

9And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

10But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

11And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

12Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

13But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

14Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

 

[ignatius]

Grace and Peace,

Iam writing from my iPhone so I will be brief. I hold our brothers struggle on this matter with great care and much sympathy. I know my own sad state will never secure me the Kingdom of God nor our Heavenly Father's approval. I am a sinner. I have not be profitable with what God has given me. In knowing my own sad state I can only hope that our God is a merciful God. It that I hope the very best for everyone especially those bond in the sins of the flesh. I would humbly ask that our brother not be too hasty in reaching his conclusion on this matter. As I said I hope for the vey best for everyone but I would caution anyone from such an lifestyle.

 

[witega]

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

I don't use the strong words to hurt you. But while I've argued here and elsewhere the individual engaging homosexual sex is no worse a sinner than my friend who hooks up with a different girl every weekend or with my own slothful self, the corrollary to that is that if homosexual sex is no worse than lieing, its no better than murder and pedophilia. All sin is spiritual poison, a drawing away of the soul from it's one true source.

However, I suspect that you'll again reject this attempt to explain what you sound like to someone who does embrace the teaching of the Church, because at this point it certainly seems that you are so emotionally committed to the rightness of your cause that you can't imagine that you might be wrong. Which would also explain why you still haven't addressed the criterion issue--because your criterion is your inability to conceive you're wrong.

...
See, I told you that it had reached the point that there was no productive way forward. Seriously, I am trying to just shut up here.

 

[Heorhij]

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

 

[katherineofdixie]

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

 

[ozgeorge]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

 

[katherineofdixie]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?

 

[Heorhij]

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

 

[ozgeorge]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?

Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.

 

[Heorhij]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

George, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the moral teachings of the Church are without mistake per se, but we, the people, reinterpret them according to our convenience?

Indeed, the issue of usury is as alive today as it was alive when the Canons prohibiting it were written. And yet Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, are constantly involved in usury, on a daily basis, and, moreover, sometimes write long passages justifying it...

 

[katherineofdixie]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?

Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.

Thank you for the clarification. So, which moral teachings do you believe to be valid? And why?

 

[katherineofdixie]

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.

 

[katherineofdixie]

Although I'm sure that one could nitpick the canons, along with Scripture and dogma and the teachings of the Church, taken as a whole, neither the canons, nor Scripture nor Holy Tradition sanctions marriage between persons of the same sex.

In Genesis, God creates man and woman in His own image and
likeness, and their union creates "a new reality of "one flesh."
I think I remember reading (and I can look for it if you wish) that this union can only involve a relationship based on gender complementarity. "God made them male and female... So they are no longer two but one flesh" (Mark 10:6-8).

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."

 

[ozgeorge]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

George, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the moral teachings of the Church are without mistake per se, but we, the people, reinterpret them according to our convenience?

Indeed, the issue of usury is as alive today as it was alive when the Canons prohibiting it were written. And yet Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, are constantly involved in usury, on a daily basis, and, moreover, sometimes write long passages justifying it...

What I mean is that the Church in her moral teaching sets ideals to strive to. Ideally, we should not be in the stock market (Canon XVII of the First Ecumenical Council), ideally we should receive Communion separately and directly receiving the Body in our hand and the Blood directly from the Chalice (Canon CI of the Qintisext), ideally Orthodox Christians should not marry non-Orthodox (Canon LXXII of Trullo). These are the ideals, but in the Church also recognises human frailty and the human condition. Orthodox Christians do fall in love with heretics and want to marry them, receiving Communion by intinction and with a Spoon has become a standard practice, our economy does now depend on interest bearing loans of money and unbacked currency, Orthodox Christians do divorce and remarry......etc...
Having ideals is not wrong or a mistake, but firstly, we actually have no Canons about this issue which set the ideal in the first place. What we have about this issue is the teaching of a some Fathers- far less than we have about usury which is actually a Canon of an Ecumenical Council.

 

[ozgeorge]

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?

Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.

Thank you for the clarification. So, which moral teachings do you believe to be valid? And why?

One example of a moral teaching I believe to be valid is that marriages between Orthodox Christians and non-Orthodox are null and void and anyone who enters such a heinous marriage should be cut off from the Church. I believe this because it is the teaching of an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Anathema to all who are in love with heretics! Fie upon the outrage!

 

[ozgeorge]

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."

That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.

 

[katherineofdixie]

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."

That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.

Hardly equivalent, as I suspect you already know.

 

[LBK]

That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.

Incorrect, ozgeorge. The second marriage does indeed feature crowning of the couple.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/shann/needs.iv.xiv.html

 

[Marc1152]

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But...What if it really is like a poison? And how do you know that it isn't?

 

[ignatius]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.
[/quote]

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

 

[Marc1152]

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?

Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6).
....
And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.

Jetavan,

What is the Buddhist view of Homosexuality? I understand the Buddha scolded a monk for returning to his wife and was equally strict to other who followed him. Do you know any details that might aid us in understand the Christian teaching on this topic?

Thanks.

The texts say that if you're a Buddhist monastic, then any sort of sexual activity is forbidden.

As a lay-person, one is encouraged to not engage in what is called "sensual misconduct". In general, this means faithfulness towards one's spouse. It can also mean a general renunciation of sensual indulgence (such as oversleeping, or too much SEC football watching).

The Buddha did not make marriage into a "sacrament", so there is no textual basis for rejecting "same-sex union" or "same-sex marriage".

However, my understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition does explicitly prohibit certain forms of intercourse that are deemed "unnatural". Other Buddhist traditions may or may not have similar textual prohibitions; if they do, they haven't reached the ears of North American Buddhists.

Having said that, much of Southeast Asian Buddhist culture sees having homosexual desires as not an ideal condition in which to live.

The framework of rebirth/reincarnation offers a way for Buddhistswrongly believe that Homosexuality is sanctioned or at least not directly addressed within Buddhism. (and Hindus) to explain homosexuality as a transitional phase between a lifetime as one gender and a lifetime as the other gender. Such a notion might lead to a fairly "tolerant" perspective on homosexual persons.

The Buddhist ideal is to see and understand the dissatisfactory nature of all craving; that is, craving produces dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction can cause craving. From my understanding of the Buddhist perspective, sexual activity, no matter how sublime, still contains an element of craving. There's nothing wrong with a little craving, if one is fairly happy with one's life. But, as monastics of any tradition, Buddhist or Christian, will tell you, another possibility is offered, if one so chooses.

Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..

 

[ignatius]

Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..

Grace and Peace,

But this is the case because Buddhism, in the west, is seen largely as an 'alternative' faith and thus tends to attract fringe elements of the culture, correct?

PS: Do you know of any explicit teachings of the Buddha concerning sexual sin that would shed light on this topic?

 

[Heorhij]

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

 

[Heorhij]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

 

[Marc1152]

Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..

Grace and Peace,

But this is the case because Buddhism, in the west, is seen largely as an 'alternative' faith and thus tends to attract fringe elements of the culture, correct?

PS: Do you know of any explicit teachings of the Buddha concerning sexual sin that would shed light on this topic?

Sorry, I am waaay out of practice and got rid of most of my Buddhist books. My teacher could rattle off chapter and verse about this subject so I am sure such teachings exist. You also have to understand that Buddhism is not only about the Buddha Shakyamuni but also the teachings of various Patriarchs and Masters such as Kobo Daishi, Sinran, Haikunin and Nichiren Daishi ..etc.

These guys were all celibate btw.

 

[Marc1152]

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

So can a Cowboy and his Horse...Five men and Five Women altogether..ummm.. One man three wives.... What makes two Men together so special?

Once you break the mold it's a slippery slope..

 

[Heorhij]

Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

So can a Cowboy and his Horse...

Copulate? Yes. Nurture each other intelectually, emotionally and physically? No.

Five men and Five Women altogether..ummm.. One man three wives.... What makes two Men together so special?

Each other.

Once you break the mold it's a slippery slope..

I will wear good shoes that create friction and won't let me slide.

 

[ignatius]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

 

[Heorhij]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."

 

[ignatius]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."

Why should we accept your categorization of human beings as heterosexual and homosexual? Why is this an essential distinction? If I only wanted to have anal sex for another. If that is all that I like, why should this act define me as essentially different than someone else who wants to have normal sexual relations? Why is it that this one distinction in 'sexual preference' makes such a distinction between men? A understand if you have been taught in modern parlance this distinction and from that you have to desire to defend an individuals 'right' to be loved but before we get that that a priori presumption convince me that it is right.

Thank you Brother.

 

[Heorhij]

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."

Why should we accept your categorization of human beings as heterosexual and homosexual? Why is this an essential distinction?

Ask homosexual people - they will say, yes, it is an essential distinction.

If I only wanted to have anal sex for another. If that is all that I like, why should this act define me as essentially different than someone else who wants to have normal sexual relations?

I don't know, but again, according to homosexual people, what makes them different from heterosexuals is a lot more than their desire to have anal sex (which quite a lot of them do not wish and do not practice, as far as I understand, especially women).

Why is it that this one distinction in 'sexual preference' makes such a distinction between men? A understand if you have been taught in modern parlance this distinction and from that you have to desire to defend an individuals 'right' to be loved but before we get that that a priori presumption convince me that it is right.

I am not actually defending anyone's rights. I am simply for such a situation where homosexual men and women are treated exactly like heterosexual men and women and are given an OPPORTUNITY to live together in the state of monogamous, committed, lifelong union, intellectual, emotional, and physical, and this union is blessed by the Church.

Thank you Brother.

You are very welcome, thank you.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

This whole "sex" thing has gotten way out of hand.  I'm sorry for all who have to carry a burden which seems "impossibly" hard and heavy for them....be they straight, crooked, or curved.

If they "love" each other so much then let them go get a civil marriage.  There are places that do this.

Leave the Church out of it.

Don't expect the Church to "change" to fit people's caprices. 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Heorhij,  I've been trying to stay out of this discussion since we certainly don't need yet one more yahoo like myself offering his opinion--if you really want to know, send me a PM--to the already boiling mix.  I would like to ask you a question, though.  What are your criteria for determining that gay marriage and straight marriage are really no different from each other?

 

[katherineofdixie]

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

No. They can't, as Genesis, among others, shows. Now that is not to say that theoretically a same sex union cannot be mutually supportive and all the rest. Perhaps some are. But it cannot, by definition, be complementarian.

 

[ignatius]

I don't know, but again, according to homosexual people, what makes them different from heterosexuals is a lot more than their desire to have anal sex (which quite a lot of them do not wish and do not practice, as far as I understand, especially women).

I guess I just wondering why you or I must necessarily have to accept how homosexual people define the conversation? I admit that I see a great deal of ground given up in the dialogue by assumping these categories as essential distinctions. Are you agreeing with them and if you are, why?

Why is it that this one distinction in 'sexual preference' makes such a distinction between men? A understand if you have been taught in modern parlance this distinction and from that you have to desire to defend an individuals 'right' to be loved but before we get that that a priori presumption convince me that it is right.

I am not actually defending anyone's rights. I am simply for such a situation where homosexual men and women are treated exactly like heterosexual men and women and are given an OPPORTUNITY to live together in the state of monogamous, committed, lifelong union, intellectual, emotional, and physical, and this union is blessed by the Church.

Again you presume that there are such a thing as homosexual men and women and other than the argument that 'they define themselves as such' I don't see any reason to agree with the distinction. If such as distinction doesn't actually exist then we'd have to agree that they are simply individuals who are arguing for not only tolerance of their abnormal appetites but acceptance as such as equal to the normative appetite. I'm simply don't see on what grounds such acceptance is merited. I don't think the Church has a real problem with committed, lifelong, intellectual, emotional relationships... but it's the physical that we are honestly discussing. So why don't we focus on that?

 

[Liz]

I have been trying to keep out of this since it's not really my cabbage patch (and, like Papist, I am looking in from the outside). Heorhji, you know that I am very glad to belong to a Church that blesses homosexual unions, so you will understand I'm not in disagreement with your intent. I do have a question about your argument, though.

Much of what you say seems to hinge on the argument that homosexuals cannot 'choose' their inclination. I'm sure this is true of many people (I know some people who would feel physically ill, even violated, at the idea of physical relations with the opposite sex). But it is not true of all people who are attracted to the same sex. What would your argument be for someone who was attracted to the same sex 90% of the time? Should they seek out the remaining 10% of the opposite sex and hope to find a partner there? What about someone who is 50/50?

I ask because I think the argument that there are people who have no choice is difficult to defend, and this is one of its weak points.

 

[katherineofdixie]

Much of what you say seems to hinge on the argument that homosexuals cannot 'choose' their inclination. I'm sure this is true of many people (I know some people who would feel physically ill, even violated, at the idea of physical relations with the opposite sex). But it is not true of all people who are attracted to the same sex. What would your argument be for someone who was attracted to the same sex 90% of the time? Should they seek out the remaining 10% of the opposite sex and hope to find a partner there? What about someone who is 50/50?

I ask because I think the argument that there are people who have no choice is difficult to defend, and this is one of its weak points.

Yes, good point. FWIW, it seems to me that there is a continuum and while some people are at one side or the other, many people fall in between.

I also think that it is a weak point because other people, with other attractions, could say that they too were born that way. Or we could make an argument from science that promiscuity or having many females to one male is the best for the species.

So why monogamy of any kind at all?

 

[Liz]

Much of what you say seems to hinge on the argument that homosexuals cannot 'choose' their inclination. I'm sure this is true of many people (I know some people who would feel physically ill, even violated, at the idea of physical relations with the opposite sex). But it is not true of all people who are attracted to the same sex. What would your argument be for someone who was attracted to the same sex 90% of the time? Should they seek out the remaining 10% of the opposite sex and hope to find a partner there? What about someone who is 50/50?

I ask because I think the argument that there are people who have no choice is difficult to defend, and this is one of its weak points.

Yes, good point. FWIW, it seems to me that there is a continuum and while some people are at one side or the other, many people fall in between.

I also think that it is a weak point because other people, with other attractions, could say that they too were born that way. Or we could make an argument from science that promiscuity or having many females to one male is the best for the species.

So why monogamy of any kind at all?

Well, I think monogamy is wonderful, very natural, and, frankly, I have not seen polyamorous relationships to work. But yes, exactly.

 

[Heorhij]

Heorhij,  I've been trying to stay out of this discussion since we certainly don't need yet one more yahoo like myself offering his opinion--if you really want to know, send me a PM--to the already boiling mix.  I would like to ask you a question, though.  What are your criteria for determining that gay marriage and straight marriage are really no different from each other?

If they are both loving, committed unions of the two persons who are unique one for the other, and they are the way of life where the two people assist each other in theosis - then I do not see any difference.