Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread

Homosexuality comes up frequenbtly on Orthodox forums because..

  • Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet.

    Votes: 20 27.8%
  • Since drunkeness, adultery, theft and dishonesty have been eradicated it's the only sin left to figh

    Votes: 10 13.9%
  • Apparently most Orthodox Christians have lots of gay family, friends and associates

    Votes: 7 9.7%
  • Orthodox forums attract a lot of self torturing closet cases and men with doubts about thier own mas

    Votes: 20 27.8%
  • Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet.

    Votes: 15 20.8%

  • Total voters
    72
Status
Not open for further replies.

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
It probably comes up alot because secular society is trying to normalize homosexuality and, at this point in history, appears to be succeeding.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
We don't have 'people with two arms and two legs rights groups' either...what's the point? 95% of the population has premarital sex, society already approves of this activity (or at least 95% of society has demonstrated by their actions that they approve of it, of those 95% who feign not to, they're hypocrites).

Only in backwards states dominated by evangelical protestants where it's still acceptable to marry your first cousin. Here in California (as in much of the west) we have community property, in case of divorce everyone gets half of all community property, it's a simple matter of civil (as opposed to common) law.
Sorry, Greeki.  Louisiana (last I checked it's dominated by evangelical protestants, and no, you can't marry your cousin there.  Btw, you can do that in as blue a State as Illinois, home of our own Mr. Obama.  You can't, btw, marry your cousin in Illinois and move to Lousiana and have it recognized.  It's an absolute nullity) is the only state with civil law, and even that is mixed, due to being attatched to the U.S.  Everyone else is common law.  And the matter isn't that simple, as the amounts that divorce lawyers rake in shows.

Papist said:
It probably comes up alot because secular society is trying to normalize homosexuality and, at this point in history, appears to be succeeding.
Yes.  Depravity has become a sign of sophistication.  Did so in Rome.  We know how that went (or should know).

St. Christopher said:
Why can't this answer be a possibility in the poll?  None of the rest of the options come even close to expressing my belief.  Not I think a serious attempt was being made to represent the people who have made negative statements about homosexual acts.
The thought police can't handle that possibilty, upsets their smug little universe.

Perhaps they are just closet conservatives? ::)

Veniamin said:
So in other words, if you're not homeschooling half a dozen kids, you don't have anything worthwhile to say. ::)

Having been in high school and junior high and all not terribly long ago, I don't recall anything that would remotely resemble some sort of "homosexual educational agenda."  Even in college, the only time I encountered anything close to that was the small gay-rights group on campus when they sponsored coming out day and most people just thought that was silly.
I'm assuming you went to school in Texas, or a similar red state.

I teach in a high school in Illinois.  Yes, it's an issue.

greekischristian said:
In an indirect way I think the last tangent has helped to answer the initial question, albeit indirectly, why are people on Orthodox forums so obsessed with homoseuxality? The very fact that the arguments are emotional in nature and full of logical fallacies, coming from a 'me against the world' mindset, a martyr complex if you will, reveals much about the psychology that drives this discussion. In short it's an irrational fear arising from repressed sexuality. Take a recent post, objection to a movie that did not try to force people into being gay, but rather addressed the issue in an objective and non-judgmental light, is violently attacked as a radical homosexual agenda. It's fear, irrationality, guilt, and in many cases a very unhealthy view of one's own sexuality using religion and morality as a sword and shield...prozac can only do so much.
.

Closet conservative.  Definitely.

To tie this all into the topic: it comes up because this is the only vice, condemned as such by the Church, that it seems that those who claim to be Orthodox will go out and defend.  Besides Greeki, I don't see any threads advocating fornication, adultery, etc... or theft, blasphemy, lying, killing etc.  Perhaps if you did, there would be more threads on these other vices.  And because they are defending something that the Church specifically condemns, they 1. have to portray themselves as the vanguard of the new dispensation 2. condemn those who refuse to be "enlightened" as backwards, ignorant, etc. or any other ad hominem handy (that's a logical fallacy, Greeki).  It would be interesting to explore the psychology of those so affected.  Maybe I should post a poll: diagnosis by skewed polling seems fun.

perhaps a better comparision would be the amount of Orthodox posters on sites under Rome, on the issue of annullments.
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Papist said:
It probably comes up alot because secular society is trying to normalize homosexuality and, at this point in history, appears to be succeeding.
Bingo!  Papist, your finger's on the pulse of the matter.  But, if I may, add another observation?  A tiny minority of Orthodox have began to buy into the 'civil rights' angle of the argument and hopped right up on the rainbow wagon with all the rest of the left-wing fruitloops while the rest of us can't abide.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
GabrieltheCelt said:
Bingo!  Papist, you got your finger on the pulse of the matter. 
Yes, the pulse of the aorta.

SolEX01 said:
How about "None of the above?"

I would vote if I had that choice.  None of the other choices are that appealing to me.   ::)
You don't get it.  When the liberal wants your opinion, he'll give it to you.

The herd of independent minds.  Think what ever you like, as long as you agree with them.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
Sorry, Greeki.  Louisiana (last I checked it's dominated by evangelical protestants, and no, you can't marry your cousin there.  Btw, you can do that in as blue a State as Illinois, home of our own Mr. Obama.  You can't, btw, marry your cousin in Illinois and move to Lousiana and have it recognized.  It's an absolute nullity) is the only state with civil law, and even that is mixed, due to being attatched to the U.S.  Everyone else is common law.  And the matter isn't that simple, as the amounts that divorce lawyers rake in shows.
Ummm...our Marriage law is derived from Mexican law which ultimately came from the Visigothic Code...and I never said we were a civil law jurisdiction, only that this element of our legal system (as well as a small number of other cases) is based in civil law.

Closet conservative.  Definitely.
Libertarianism to be more percise. No action can possibly be wrong or immoral if it does not deprive another individual of their life, liberty, or property.

To tie this all into the topic: it comes up because this is the only vice, condemned as such by the Church, that it seems that those who claim to be Orthodox will go out and defend.  Besides Greeki, I don't see any threads advocating fornication, adultery, etc... or theft, blasphemy, lying, killing etc.
You sure about that? I have stated time and time again that there is absolutely nothing wrong with fornication. As for adultery, while it may be damaging to the relationship as it does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property it would be beyond absurd to legally restrict it. As for theft, that generally does deprive another individual of their property, but even then some have accused me of advocating it for my support of fair use. Blasphemy...give me a break...the gods should be able to defend themselves, it's comical (and at the same time really quite quaint) that anyone would even be concerned about it; if it is legislated against, such legislation is tryannical, an evil beyond all other evils. As for lying, it depends on the context, of course, few would argue that perjury is acceptable as it undermines our system of jurisprudence but telling a fat person they're skinny or an ugly person they're attractive is just polite. Oh, and as for killing, of course it depends on the context, most everyone believes in cases where killing is acceptable, personally I'm all for abortion, war, execution in some instances, and genocide (j/k about the last one ;)).

In the end your moral code is simply overly simplistic and laughable.

Perhaps if you did, there would be more threads on these other vices.  And because they are defending something that the Church specifically condemns, they 1. have to portray themselves as the vanguard of the new dispensation 2. condemn those who refuse to be "enlightened" as backwards, ignorant, etc. or any other ad hominem handy (that's a logical fallacy, Greeki).  It would be interesting to explore the psychology of those so affected.  Maybe I should post a poll: diagnosis by skewed polling seems fun.
In the end, I don't really care what the Church has said in the past, she has changed her views before and no doubt will again. While there is a fundamentalist wing that wants to return to the 'golden age' of the fourth century the hierarchy is a bit more pragmatic; it will change with the times, recognizing the danger of not doing so. Plus, fortunately the insistence on Episcopal Celibacy has ensured that the homosexual lobby will always have a powerful and significant influence at the highest levels of ecclesiastical governance...you're a bit out of luck with this one. ;)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
Ummm...our Marriage law is derived from Mexican law which ultimately came from the Visigothic Code
A quick LexisNexis search didn't reveal that.  Wrong again? (I'm willing to see proof of your assertion.  In the constitutional convention the gringos outnumbered others Californios 6 to 1.  The Californios disappeared).

...and I never said we were a civil law jurisdiction, only that this element of our legal system (as well as a small number of other cases) is based in civil law.
Wrong again:
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE  DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES OF LAW
Cal Civ Code § 22.2 (2007) § 22.2.  Common law as rule of decision: The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

There is no such thing, per se, as civil law.  It is the procedure (and the associated issues like burden of proof, etc.) which distinguishes civil and criminal law.  The distinction evaporates, for instance, in the question of child support, where it is a private interest but the state enforces (and in many jurisdictions, collects) it.  The distinction does help divorce courts to dispense with all those guarentees, like the ban on debtors prison, that other courts have to deal with.


Libertarianism to be more percise. No action can possibly be wrong or immoral if it does not deprive another individual of their life, liberty, or property.
What do you call a cheap liberal?  A libertarian.

You sure about that? I have stated time and time again that there is absolutely nothing wrong with fornication.
Hence why I brought you up.

As for adultery, while it may be damaging to the relationship as it does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property it would be beyond absurd to legally restrict it.
Wrong again.  Wade through the case law on divorce.

As for theft, that generally does deprive another individual of their property, but even then some have accused me of advocating it for my support of fair use.
Wrong again. 

Blasphemy...give me a break...the gods should be able to defend themselves, it's comical (and at the same time really quite quaint) that anyone would even be concerned about it; if it is legislated against, such legislation is tryannical, an evil beyond all other evils.
Wrong again, spouting dogma yet again against dogma.

As for lying, it depends on the context, of course, few would argue that perjury is acceptable as it undermines our system of jurisprudence
Wrong again.  Again, wade through the divorce case law, but other sources would prove a rich treasure trove of perjury.

but telling a fat person they're skinny or an ugly person they're attractive is just polite.
Wrong again.  Compliment them on good qualities they do possess (looking at the positive might be a new experience for you, I understand).


Oh, and as for killing, of course it depends on the context, most everyone believes in cases where killing is acceptable, personally I'm all for abortion, war, execution in some instances, and genocide
Wrong again.  Why only "some instance."

(j/k about the last one ;)).
Wrong again, or is that lying? ;)

In the end your moral code is simply overly simplistic
Wrong again. Apply Occam's razor...

and laughable.
...then again, maybe don't.  Wouldn't want you to cut yourself on sharp objects. (I notice you didn't include suicide in your list of acceptable killing).

In the end, I don't really care what the Church has said in the past,
how about the present?

she has changed her views before
yes, this mantra doesn't seem to have worked, despite repetition.


and no doubt will again.
you have just exceeded the empirical evidence you tout.

While there is a fundamentalist wing that wants to return
Return? When did it leave?

to the 'golden age' of the fourth century the hierarchy is a bit more pragmatic;
Yes, that's why the EP is head hiearch.


it will change with the times,
You mean Alexei will be moved to the top of the dyptichs?  He's even more down on the topic at hand: remember the priest the PoM defrocked and the Church bulldozed when a gay "marriage" took place?

recognizing the danger of not doing so.
Fortunately, so far they have recognized the danger of doing so.


Plus, fortunately the insistence on Episcopal Celibacy has ensured that the homosexual lobby will always have a powerful and significant influence at the highest levels of ecclesiastical governance...you're a bit out of luck with this one. ;)
I actually have inside information on this.  No, it hasn't changed things a bit.

Of course the fallacy celibacy=homosexuality is also how many make the claim that history has been "straightened" out.  Of course the Church's praise of celibacy is that it is not of this world.  Hence, I don't expect you to understand.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,735
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
ialmisry said:
You don't get it.  When the liberal wants your opinion, he'll give it to you.

The herd of independent minds.  Think what ever you like, as long as you agree with them.
I didn't agree with the options.  ;D
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
SolEX01 said:
I didn't agree with the options.   ;D
There you go again, thinking for yourself, and without apology!  The audacity ;)
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
I personally believe that this topic comes up so often because of lack of compassion for those foibles that are not our own; or those we are working to overthrow because "we have seen the light". It always amazes me that a new Christian will be the biggest sinner on the block on Friday night; "come to the Lord" on Saturday; shout it to the rooftops on Sunday; and then go out and condemn his/her fellow sinners on Monday - often those they were sinning with on Friday night. What amazes me even more is that some Christians don't move from that spot. It's like they hate to see freewill in action.



 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Ebor said:
One thought that occurs to me is that the subject might come up so frequently because it might be an instance of "cheap righteousness", that is the idea that putting up a vehement post from behind the, as it were, shield of a computer screen, may give the writer good feelings that they are taking a stand without dealing with real human beings face to face. 

It is among the topics that I have seen written about with, shall we say, strong words and uncharitable language that do not show any concern for the feelings or empathy with other people.  (for example the "bitter pill" remark, telling someone to do something that the speaker would not and in a cruel way.)  When such a lack of charity is brought up, a very common response is that being polite/charitable/courteous would not *really* be "loving" because the target person would think that being kind meant that whatever it is that they do/are is OK.  That a real "loving" response is the verbal equivalent of a baseball bat or a dead fish up-side the head.   :-\  Then if the other person rejects the post it is all their own fault and responsibility that they are not accepting the True Way(tm) as laid down by the one who was blunt/cruel/uncharitable.  A kind of "I did my part by telling them they were wrong, and have no responsibility for them not accepting my declaration of how they should change."  Cheap righteousness- just words, no effort in dealing with another as a human being, no trying to understand the "Other"  the "Not-like-me".

I hope that that is not too convoluted.  I am not addressing this at any one, just looking at the question of the original post, and offering an idea.

With respect,

Ebor
<deafening applause>
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Riddikulus said:
I personally believe that this topic comes up so often because of lack of compassion for those foibles that are not our own; or those we are working to overthrow because "we have seen the light". It always amazes me that a new Christian will be the biggest sinner on the block on Friday night; "come to the Lord" on Saturday; shout it to the rooftops on Sunday; and then go out and condemn his/her fellow sinners on Monday - often those they were sinning with on Friday night. What amazes me even more is that some Christians don't move from that spot. It's like they hate to see freewill in action.
Well said!

Homosexuality is a struggle for all of us, whether those who struggle with same-sex attraction itself or we who struggle not to condemn those who do. So many find it so easy to quote St. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, but they forget Jesus' words, "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you” (Luke 6:37-38). Being a sinner myself, I certainly would rather be forgiven than condemned for my struggles. Therefore, I should do the same for others. Is that not what our Lord called the greatest commandment?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Honestly I don't think that homosexuality comes up over and over again just because everyone hates gays. As I said before, the reason that homosexuality comes up is that our society has made it an issue. For over about thrity to forty years, active homosexuals have been pushing an agenda to bring homosexuality out into the open and present the homosexual life style as a normal and viable alternative to the heterosexuality. Before this sixties, this was nearly unheard of. Homosexuality was quite rightly viewed as a disorder, sinful, and unhealhty. The big change in the way our society views the matter and has continually brought it to the forfront of discussion over the past few decades has made homosexuality a big political topic of conversation that it simply was not in the past. This is not the fault of Christians, Orthodox, Catholic, or otherwise, but rather the society at large that has made the issue so "important". Since Christian ethics rejects homosexuality, Christians now are forced to deal with an issue that secular culture is basically shoving in everyone's face whether they like it or not. If anyone really wants to point a finger for making the homosexual agenda an issue they should not be pointing a finger at Christians who are responding to a matter becuase of their faith. Rather, point the finger at those who continue to force the issue.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Well said!

Homosexuality is a struggle for all of us, whether those who struggle with same-sex attraction itself or we who struggle not to condemn those who do. So many find it so easy to quote St. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, but they forget Jesus' words, "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you” (Luke 6:37-38). Being a sinner myself, I certainly would rather be forgiven than condemned for my struggles. Therefore, I should do the same for others. Is that not what our Lord called the greatest commandment?
I agree, of course, but, unfortunately, there is another verse in the New Testament that is often quoted by bigots: 1 Cor. 2:15, "but he, who is spiritual, judges all things (in some translations, "everything," or "all that exists," i.e. people as well), yet he himself is rightly judged by no one." Naturally, bigots always know that they are "spiritual..." Also, I heard some people very seriously say that Christ's words prohibiting to judge were addressed to those whom He knew as hypocrites; for example, Judas the Iskariot was most definitely present during the Sermon of the Mount...

Ah, Scripture, Scripture, wonderful Scripture. What a great stick to beat one's opponent on the head till he dies. :(
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
All the above reasons may very well be true, but it seems to me that it comes up so much because the topic gets shoved down our throat.  In my daily life, I never hear anyone bring it up. I work with straight people, homosexual people, christian people, people unmarried living together, muslim people, basically every sort of belief and value you can imagine(lot of interesting people in advertising) and we all get along well.  Very well in fact.  But when you get people on court house steps and making headlines about gay marriage, gay adoption, hellfire, carrying signs invoking God's judgement, etc. I don't see how it's any surprise that people would then be talking about it.  And since it is something that most people either don't understand or don't agree with, for most I don't think bringing it up is anything evil or judgemental, it's just kinda, "Hey, that doesn't seem quite right."

Now my rant for the day. As with most issues like this, it's the people pointing fingers on both sides, calling each other judgemental, etc. that blows this topic up and in a sense makes everyone passing judgement in both directions a hypocrite. You've got your red necks, you've got your militant homosexuals, you've got your right wing zealots, you've got your holier than thou liberals.  I wish they would just fight it out in a locked room. 

Modified to remove an acronym referring to a profane expression.  I know that you meant nothing wrong by it.  Let's try to avoid profanity or reference to it whenever possible.  Thanks.  Pravoslavbob.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Oh, and to stir the pot and refer to the poll.  Reading these posts, in general, it seems that those who get the most worked up and most in need of Prozac are the ones saying, "Who are you to cast the first stone, who are you to judge, etc.!"   ;)


We should have this poll:

What is the most quoted scripture we throw down when people do or say something we don't like and use scripture to back up the position we don't like:
1) Judge not lest ye be judged.
2) Take the log out of your own eye.
3) Ye without sin cast the first stone.
4) etc.  :eek:

and when you are on the other side of the coin:

What is the most quoted scripture when you don't agree with someone's behavior and want to smack them down:
1) Any verse that say "don't do this"


The most intriguing thing to me about life, scriptures, the church, etc. are all the dichotomies we have to work through.  Their are plenty of verses that tell us not to judge, but their are just as many judging and giving us criteria to judge.  God created everything, except for evil. Turn the other cheek, but tear down the money changers. Love your brother as yourself, but walk away from said brother if you need to to follow Christ. Etc., etc.

The dichotomies are really why we argue so much on this stuff.  There is a side of the coin that agrees with all of us.
 

livefreeordie

High Elder
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Heorhij said:
I agree, of course, but, unfortunately, there is another verse in the New Testament that is often quoted by bigots: 1 Cor. 2:15, "but he, who is spiritual, judges all things (in some translations, "everything," or "all that exists," i.e. people as well), yet he himself is rightly judged by no one." Naturally, bigots always know that they are "spiritual..." Also, I heard some people very seriously say that Christ's words prohibiting to judge were addressed to those whom He knew as hypocrites; for example, Judas the Iskariot was most definitely present during the Sermon of the Mount...

Ah, Scripture, Scripture, wonderful Scripture. What a great stick to beat one's opponent on the head till he dies. :(
Great post George!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top