With this Archpastoral Directive on same-sex marriage, Met. Joseph has revealed himself to be as strong on the pastoral issues in his Archdiocese as Met. Philip was on the administrative side. The Antiochian Archdiocese is emerging as one of the stronger jurisdictions in America and along with ROCOR may be the place where people who look for serious and consistent moral teaching and practice — especially within the leadership — will seek out.
The directive lays it out clearly: Natural marriage (one male and one female) is created by God and attested in nature, there is no marriage apart from natural marriage, Adam and Eve are the prototypes for marriage, natural marriage is elevated and blessed in the Church.
Secondly, the instructions to pastors are clear: No attendance at any same-sex marriages including the reception even as a guest because that lends tacit approval to the arrangement, be very careful with rental of church facilities.
Well done Met. Joseph. Thank you. AXIOS!
Source: AOIUSA
Published: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese
Excerpt:
Based…upon natural creation, even as our Lord Jesus Christ did as reported in the holy Gospels…the Church recognizes the word, “marriage,” as designating only one datum: the fleshly union of one man and one woman, “just as Adam and Eve in the beginning of the world” (ancient betrothal, Service of Matrimony) in an exclusive way, allowing no others.
It is this exclusive union of love which alone is fertile and thus the nursery of the human race until the end of time. Any other so-called “marriage,” including socalled “same-sex marriage,” is a forgery and death-dealing, sterile and doomed to frustration and the ruin of body and soul of its participants.
Therefore, the Church cannot recognize or countenance any other definition of marriage by any human law, since any such “law” contrary to God’s own created ordinance cannot stand as law, but is and will be a dead letter. “There is a way which seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is death.” This, then, is the Church’s word to our North American people.
Met. Joseph is the Archbishop of the Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America.
Download/Print the Archiepiscopal Directive
[gview file=”https://www.monomakhos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Archepiscopal-Directive-on-Same-Sex-Marriage-10-29-15.pdf” height=”800px”]
Yes, Axios.
Indeed, well done!
I personally agreed with Fr. Reardon’s policy of refusing to participate in government marriage period, but His Eminence has struck that down for the time being. I expect that will be the gay brigade’s next target though, along with church rental facilities.
Only rent facilities to your own parishioners! Of course that would mean that places with big venues might not make as much money, but they could possibly make that up with increased tithing! Horrible thought!
This is a clear and well needed directive. Such a directive I have wished the GOAA and specifically the Metropolis of Chicago would adopt. I hope and pray that Bishop Demetrios of Mokkisos, and Metropolitan Iakovos are paying attention as well as members of our local metropolitan synod and the GOAA synod and Archbishop Iakovos. We need a directive like this now more than ever. I pray it comes to the GOAA and all other Orthodox Jurisdictions.
The Antiochians are correct on this and we must give them our support.
Peter A. Papoutsis
What a wonderfully clear and authoritative pastoral letter! Many years to Met. Joseph!
Talk about preaching to the choir! Definitions are neither legal nor illegal, licit or illicit.. and marriage is not a “datum”. Further, what is the basis for claiming that Adam and Eve loved each other? Were Cain’s and Abel’s children fathered on the body of their mother, or of their sister(s) or just outside marriage period?
Your Grace might have earlier applied to H.H. Pope Francis to replace H. E. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. H.E. Metropolitan Joseph’s message is straightforward, strong, and clear leadership.
I LOVE the part where he calls marriage a “DATUM!”
Bishop Tikhon inquires, “Further, what is the basis for claiming that Adam and Eve loved each other?”
. . . . I was going to comment, but I changed my mind.
Gail, “fulfilling God’s purpose” may be accomplished ALONE . DID, by the way, Adam and Eve fulfill God’s purpose? The Fall was “God’s purpose” and that proves they loved each other? I don’t believe so.
Unlike many, Gail, I would not DARE to imagine I could define love. The Antiochene hierarch claims Adam and Eve loved each other—but then , he defined marriage as a DATUM.. Go figure.
Vladka,
RE: “Gail, “fulfilling God’s purpose” may be accomplished ALONE.” – Metropolitan Joseph wasn’t talking about the path of monasticism or any other scenario where one might work out his or her salvation alone. He was specifically talking about marriage. Context is everything.
RE: “DID, by the way, Adam and Eve fulfill God’s purpose?” – Through Christ and the Theotokos, God’s purpose for Adam and Eve was fulfilled.
RE: ” The Fall was “God’s purpose” and that proves they loved each other? I don’t believe so.” – No one said the Fall was God’s purpose or that it proves Adam and Eve loved each other. Not sure where you got that.
RE: “Unlike many, Gail, I would not DARE to imagine I could define love.” – I wouldn’t either, but in terms of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 & Ephesians 5:25-30 does a pretty good job.
RE: “The Antiochene hierarch claims Adam and Eve loved each other.” – Adam and Eve were one flesh and therefore the very icon of the union of love through marriage.
RE: “. . . but then , he defined marriage as a DATUM.. Go figure.” – Marriage, between a man and a woman, IS a datum: it is “something given” in the Holy Scriptures.
Ms Sheppard, surely you can do better than this:
RE: “Gail, “fulfilling God’s purpose” may be accomplished ALONE.” – Metropolitan Joseph wasn’t talking about the path of monasticism or any other scenario where one might work out his or her salvation alone. He was specifically talking about marriage. Context is everything.
I believe someone said “only in marriage.”
RE: “DID, by the way, Adam and Eve fulfill God’s purpose?” – Through Christ and the Theotokos, God’s purpose for Adam and Eve was fulfilled.
So Adam and Eve did NOT fulfill God’s purpose: It was not fulfilled UNTIL the coming of Christ. GaiL now ALSO shows it was NOT Adam and Eve who fulfilled God’s purpose.
RE: ” The Fall was “God’s purpose” and that proves they loved each other? I don’t believe so.” – No one said the Fall was God’s purpose or that it proves Adam and Eve loved each other. Not sure where you got that.
RE: “Unlike many, Gail, I would not DARE to imagine I could define love.” – I wouldn’t either, but in terms of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 & Ephesians 5:25-30 does a pretty good job.
“A pretty good job?” That means nice try.
RE: “The Antiochene hierarch claims Adam and Eve loved each other.” – Adam and Eve were one flesh and therefore the very icon of the union of love through marriage.
That does not follow at all.
RE: “. . . but then , he defined marriage as a DATUM.. Go figure.” – Marriage, between a man and a woman, IS a datum: it is “something given” in the Holy Scriptures.
Data, Gail, are INFORMATION. There’s a lot of INFORMATION in Scripture. Marriage is not INFORMATION.
Patrick Henry Reardon, no one expected a comment–why not just answer my question: “Further, what is the basis for claiming that Adam and Eve loved each other?”
RE: “Further, what is the basis for claiming that Adam and Eve loved each other?”
I guess it would depend on your idea of love. To me, love is fulfilling God’s purpose. What is your definition, Your Grace?
Gail, “fulfilling God’s purpose” may be accomplished ALONE . DID, by the way, Adam and Eve fulfill God’s purpose? The Fall was “God’s purpose” and that proves they loved each other? I don’t believe so.
Unlike many, Gail, I would not DARE to imagine I could DEFINE love. The Antiochene hierarch claimed Adam and Eve loved each other—but then , he also defined marriage as a DATUM.. Go figure.
If a clergyman’s family member goes the gay way, I don’t see how attendence in of itself is a blessing. In fact, any clergy that would attend a gay wedding are sort of self scolding from my perspective. That is, it would be difficult to attend. But I see the other side of the coin which is approval.
I also don’t understand solemnize. Is that any Orthodox person attending a gay wedding? Or participating? Or is he saying the obvious if you get married outside the church, you are no longer a member? Number five confused me.
Finally, the church renting out facilities can’t be left on a per church basis. That is a can of worms. Renting out facilities to the public will create a litigious environment. It is only a matter of time before some activists land on this easy target. A way out(maybe) is to only rent the hall out if the priest is in attendance or some such. That way, the church rules for clergy must be met. That may have legal force. That is, the/a priest must give a blessing at any rented event and therefore the event must meet the churches requirements that a priest can bless it. My main point is I think he left a door open here. And for the church to practice the religion;a gay event might or might not be considered by the court to disrupt it. The courts will see a rental to Bobby n Sue the atheists looking for a reception hall and no way will they allow a gay reception denied….
My personal thinking is the church needs to practice the faith in all things. Hall rental as well. No different the rabbinical hand….
While many of you know I have a liberal attitude on state gay marriage, I don’t believe gay marriage ought to occur in the church or even in church facilities. But if the church rents the space out for anything where a blessing ought not occur….them a gay marriage is no different.
Voting dislike will really not help the church.
Daniel,
I appreciate your thoughts, but this type of thinking is not only schizophrenic, but causes a bad witnesses to occur to the unsaved and confusion to others inside and outside the Church. This is spiritual warfare nothing more or less. The side that is pushing for this evil has given no quarter and has taken the fight to us every single time. What have we done? I am sad to say that we have done exactly what you have said and people have been lost and confused in the process.
No on this I disagree. We make a statement and take a stand for Jesus Christ and his Holy Gospel. Do you actually think that the people on the other side think or behave as nice like you or me? NO! So with all due respect please make up your mind who you will serve because you cannot serve two masters. The one master, Jesus Christ, is full of mercy and grace, the other master, The Ruler of This World, is not.
Always remember: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12 (RSV)
Also, the master and ruler of this world is our adversary the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. 1 Peter 5:8 (RSV)
Wake up buddy the people on the other side, as much as we are to love them and show mercy and grace towards them, hate us, and do not want us around. They are wholly on the Devil’s side and they along with him seek to devour us! I do not say this to hurt your feeling. On the contrary I say this because I care and want you and your family protected.
To paraphrase Sun Tzu in his Art of War:
Never underestimate your enemy.
Never overestimate your own forces.
Ignoring these will lead to disaster.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter-I suggest you take up Dale Carnegie.
You don’t win over anyone ideologically or any other way with your tone.
My opinion is the letter put the onus to defend unrelated church business (per the tax code) on each church.
I see that as unwise.
It will be hard to have a rational dialogue with you.
I don’t serve some imaginery straw man scotus master.
Schizophrenia is a horrible mischaracterization, a label, nothing more. Part of me thinks your comment is absolutely dirty, but I want to give you some Christian mercy, due or not.
Getting past all that, my main goal is to make sure the churches can avoid having gay receptions in their rental facilities. If you think that is paranoid; did you read the letter? I didn’t bring it up. Just found it covered poorly.
Now, do you really think you can impose the faith on the other 349 million here in the US? There may actually be a diagnosis for that-tit for tat and getting more like you.
Well, Daniel what can I say, the truth will make you free, but first it’s going to piss you off. Good to know i spoke the truth to you.
Keep appeasing and I’ll keep fighting. Maybe one day you’ll see the light.
Peter
“You don’t win over anyone ideologically or any other way with your tone.”
Look around you. We are way beyond the time of hoping to win over the madness of these people. (Thats not to say individuals won’t be won over, but collectively? No.)
The ravenous wolves are out for blood and will not be appeased by dialogue, no matter how meek and mild it is. The time has come for our shepherds to raise their staffs to protect the faithful flock of Christ.
Boy Ages, you got a rude awakening coming if you think the gay wolves are coming for you
Not to mention Peter said I was schizophrenic…
Ages, you are inventing enemies. You, like others, are under the impression the “wolves” are going to attack the Orthodox Church. Most of the gay community are in complete ignorance of what the Orthodox Church is due to its poor presence. The Roman Catholic Church is getting all the publicity. I can assure you that “same sex marriage” did not come about with the Orthodox Church in mind. so why vilify a people going around minding their own business and on the most part, don’t even know who we are or think we’re an extension of some ethnic group?
Number 5 is saying that any Orthodox person who is married by someone other than an Orthodox priest, using the Orthodox marriage service, is excommunicated.
He said nothing about Orthodox laymen attending gay weddings, though I wish he had at least discouraged it.
Oh, thanks. Makes sense.
“If a clergyman’s family member goes the gay way, I don’t see how attendence in of itself is a blessing.”
Blessed is he who does not stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Presumably that includes those who mock and debase the sacraments, and those who openly and proudly commit sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.
I am only commenting my opinion. I doubt a priest would be pleased his child is gay. But the sad reality is it could happen. Maybe the Metropolitan makes a good excuse for the priest?
That is, ‘I’m not allowed to attend’. Vs I cannot give MY blessing on such a union.
See what I mean?
I don’t think a priest should bless the damnable sins of his children, regardless of what his bishop says. But you’re right, it does offer cover in awkward circumstances, I suppose.
“Damnable,” huh? “Judge not, and you shall not be judged.”
Actually Nicholas I take exception with your point.
There is nothing wrong with me judging your actions. We are all to be judged. The church says homosexuality is a sin. I don’t understand homosexuality, but I don’t find it beautiful. And therefore, it is much easier for me to accept it as sin. When I see homosexuals, I am sad for them, like it or not.
As we walk through our lives, not everyone will see beauty in the same things.
I find it normal to find homosexuality not beautiful, ugly even. You see it otherwise. And while you and I agree Ages goes beyond need with a perverse notion the gays are attacking, we do not agree his use of adjectives is wrong. He said damnable, I would have said ugly.
I think he was kinder, but I think I have the right to find it ugly. Even to say so. Homosexuals took over the word gay to lighten the mood and to mitigate the reflection on the ass act. I like the word gay, and find the abuse of it horrid. I can judge that as well, right?
Sorry, but Ages was kind calling it damnable. I think you could have let it go and accepted church teaching.
Daniel, You are of course, welcomed to your opinion. It is too bad that you are not expressing your informed opinion. There have always been two definitions of the word, “gay.” One means cheerful or bright, such as gay colors and another means someone who is a bon vivant, a man about town. The word was adopted by the gay community as a usable word to replace the words, “faggot, “sodomite” and “queer” just like the word “African American” was used to replace the derogatory words, “nigger,” “coon,” “jungle bunny” and so on. Now, I am not saying that gays are a race like the Africans, but that the language of prejudice is the same. People are judged by the way they look, their social status, their religion, political affiliation, social standing, etc. Your opinion that “Homosexuals took over the word gay to lighten the mood and to mitigate the reflection on the ass act.” Is as narrow-minded as it unhistorical: and your reduction of a love between two people as “the ass act,” clearly shows your opinions are prejudicial and hateful. It’s like reducing a marriage between a man and a woman to just “friction,” completely disregarding the years they loved and cared for each other. In may interest you to know that not all gay men do “the ass act” as you call it, and some heterosexuals do it too–but nobody judges them. If you find gay people “ugly,” well I put it down to the way you were brought up. Many people find other groups “ugly” as well.
I just first saw this post today Nicholas. Sorry to be late posting a response.
I find all sex acts between two men ugly. Between two women ditto. It is not hateful to describe anal sex as ugly….and you are correct, it is equally ugly when performed by heterosexuals. Very few heterosexuals enjoy this type of behavior. Most of my guy friends find it gross. Maybe you’d rather I discussed other sex acts between men; they are equally as ugly to me. We live in a free country Nicholas. I can call homosexual sex acts ugly. It is an opinion. It isn’t at all hateful. If you look at a painting someday and think it is ugly and a friend thinks otherwise; I guess they should call you a hateful bigot by your logic.
If you want to control my thoughts Nicholas, I’m very sorry, it won’t be allowed. In the words of my 16 year old son, boys are smelly, gay sex is ishy. All opinion son. And you don’t get to choose what paintings I like either.
As for how I was brought up, I am not even against gay marriage. My opinion has always been they should be able to marry in the Church of Festivus if they wish, but that government has no business blessing personal relationships and protecting personal relationships. Not even heterosexuals.. Government does have a role in equitable treatment of people; including treating men as men and girls as girls, and also to prevent people from undue harms or abuses. Someday government is going to get out of the personal relationship holy water business-it will be awhile. The DOMA was the start of the madness. And even then I thought it was an abomination that government wanted to defend one personal relationship over another. For now, gay marriage is a just reward, but an equivalent error by me.
My opinion does go further. You and the schools have no business telling my five year old it is okay for boys to marry boys and then forcing me to explain reasons it isn’t best.
One of my fondest memories of younger days was when a gay guy my dad knew let us use his fishing dock and I caught a huge walleye.
Never call me a bigot. I am not one at all. It is the only way you know how to frame someone who thinks in a different fashion than you.
That’s right, it is you who must call me a bigot to justify your own ideologies.
Ain’t my favorite painting. Get it?
Nicholas:
The quote is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” The context means to judge oneself first so that one may then help his brother. Remove the beam, then help the brother remove his speck.
Our Lord also said once that while He did not judge, the words that He spoke do.
lxc
No one can become gay unless they do not serve God, or do not serve God alone. They, then enter into the great whore, partaking and becoming a plague of the great whore. They ignore the Word of God and live for bread alone, refusing to listen to the 2 Great Commandments, which are the fullness of the Law and the Prophets.
The Royal Law, stands in Eternity, eternally fulfilled. The Royal Law is the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, as Adam and Eve were innocent and walked with God. They ate of the Tree Knowledge of Good and Evil, and gave power to sin, which comes from the Royal Law, as St Paul stated, The power of sin is the Royal Law. The Victory of Jesus Christ was finished on the Cross, which causes the perfectly fulfilled Royal Law to stand invincible in time, restoring fallen creation. This Victory will be fully manifest with the defeat of the last enemy, death. Destroying death by death.
Communing professing gays, married or not is to give sin more power. Holy things are for the Holy. Authentic repentance requires striving to obey the Word of God declaring yourself male or female as your DNA is coded. It is also, abundantly obvious, that great whore – ite beasters have no business being ordained or tonsured, despite theological academic credentials.
Sounds a bit like ‘word salad’ to me. and I’ve encountered actual schizophrenics who talk way all the time. Be careful, guy. Your ‘passions’ might be giving you away.
And your point would be? No one is worthy to approach the chalice, but one must be prepared. I’m weary of the “Great Whore” terminology, I’ve heard it before in the mouths of Fundamentalists, and it is alarming to hear it being used by those who confess they belong to the True Church. Please do not give us Fundamentalism with icons.
Perhaps Diaspora Orthodoxy being divided administratively will prove to be a blessing and not a curse. If a Metropolitan goes “rogue” at some point, we will have other options as was stated. If a Roman Catholic wants to remain a Roman Catholic, their options are far fewer if the Pope succumbs to the spirit of this age. I’m beginning to see our disunity as Divine Providence. Glory to God.
That’s not Orthodoxy. The ecclesiology you have described is an obscure theological term known as “Protestantism.”
no surprise here. I do, I do, and I do.
Governments blessing private relationships of any kind is a big no no.
Met. Joseph:
No “clergyman”? I guess it’s okay for the non-clergyman, then. WOW THAT MET. JOSEPH, HE’S VERY STRICT!
Next Antiochian layperson who attends his or hers nephew’s ‘wedding’ gits a whooping! But not in public like a clergyman.
I wonder how His Eminence would react if he discovered a gay man pressed his robes or if he were waited on by a gay waiter. Or if a gay police officer protected him from getting robbed or worse?
Nicholas Chiazza (November 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm) says:
I wonder how His Eminence would react if he discovered a gay man pressed his robes or if he were waited on by a gay waiter. Or if a gay police officer protected him from getting robbed or worse?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, really!
Homosexuality isn’t contagious, in spite of its political proponents’ loud advancing of their destructive agenda.
It would be wonderful if Met. Joseph knew that the people who assist him were verifiable saints, but that doesn’t happen much, even in the experience of people who have such holy responsibilities as does he as a bishop.
Meanwhile, I suspect that he merely considers himself a sinner among sinners and that he would make no distinction among people whose sins include homosexual activity, heterosexual vice, grand theft auto, cruelty to animals, or tax evasion — provided that they don’t attempt to call their sins virtues and try to convince the rest of us that evil is good.
This arrived just this morning via another list. It was NOT written in reference to homosexuals. Perhaps someone will find it helpful:
“Those who seek humility should bear in mind the three following things: that they are the worst of sinners, that they are the most despicable of all creatures since their state is an unnatural one, and that they are even more pitiable than the demons, since they are slaves to the demons. You will also profit if you say this to yourself: how do I know what or how many other people’s sins are, or whether they are greater than or equal to my own? In our ignorance you and I , my soul, are worse than all men, we are dust and ashes under their feet. How can I not regard myself as more despicable than all other creatures, for they act in accordance with the nature they have been given, while I, owing to my innumerable sins, am in a state contrary to nature.”
St. Gregory of Sinai.
“Make no distinction?” I think his ban on attending a same-sex “wedding” is such a “distinction.” What, ecumenism is only OK in matters of doctrine? The heretics’ masses are ok to “attend?”
(I know, I know: sex is ALL!)
He would not care. This is why he should not go so far over such triviality.
Well, as long as you keep bringing up this triviality I will continue to comment about it.
Sometimes a father must be the heavy to protect his children. Thank you M. Joseph for carrying the weight of your children. Firm feet on solid ground.
“Sometimes a father must be the heavy to protect his children.”
Assuming of course, that they are under attack.
Gay marriage is a convenient pseudo attack for the most part, but requiring a florist to attend to a gay wedding is government overreach.
Personal relationships do not deserve government protection. That goes for heterosexuals as well.
The scotus will figure it out eventually.
As a follow up, if a single person walks into a flower shop; there is no protection express or implied that requires the shop owner to serve them. Well, maybe a black guy gets some, but it aint much.
No marriage deserves government protection if the same protection cannot be given or granted to a single person. Doma was the first madness.
Not at all! Marriage is the fundament of all civilization. It needs and has always had special protection from all sane governments, whether they be monarchies, republics, tyrannies, or mere tribal councils. The reasons are obvious: it takes one man and one woman to reproduce. The human baby, and the debilitated mother, are among the weakest beings in the animal kingdom. The strength of the human male is required to protect and nurture the mother who in turn is required to nurture the infant. A mother’s debilitated state lasts for about three years –the last six months of pregnancy plus the 2 & 1/2 years of suckling the child. Only to be repeated again with another pregnancy.
Hence “matriarchy” is a sham. There is no realistic way women can protect their offspring without the resources of men. We would do well to remember that our Lord was born into an intact family. He had a mother who bore Him and suckled Him and she had a provider who protected and cared for her.
Absolutely not.
You can thank yourself for gay’s getting marriage protections.
Let me repeat.
No married person deserves protections unmarrieds do not.
Marriage is a personal institution. By demanding secular government protections, there can be no wonder gays wanted same (puns meant).
The only time government needs to be involved is contractual matters in the beginning or end.
The idea Arlene’s Flowers must cater to a homosexual personal relationship’s is all just a reversal of the ill thought out doma.
It is a great error and someday will be undone. And then you can react and cry foul again, while failing to see the government should throw holy water on none.
Or rather, as Orthodox enjoy, government should not have holy water.
Daniel, you are clearly incorrect. All people require the protection of the state: that’s Civilization 101. Married people however require additional protections because they have been entrusted with reproducing fragile human beings, who by definition, cannot protect themselves.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. Marriage law — whether written or unwritten — has existed in every culture in history. This is not because the state — however primitively it may be organized — has an interest in the love lives and emotional needs of its citizenry. It arises because of a fundamental biological reality — when a man and a woman have sex, babies happen.
Around this has arisen issues of transfer of property from one family to another, joint possessions, etc. Governments — again, however primitively they may be organized — have a vested interest in having these issues: property exchange, joint property, and the responsibility of care for children, be as orderly as possible. In most societies historically, religious functionaries have played a role in all of this, because the line between religion and government is a relatively modern invention — and not just in erstwhile Christian societies.
None of this is so much a matter of protection of marriage as it is of creating institutions that function in the best interest of an orderly society. Governments have never regulated friendships — because there is nothing to regulate. I suppose that modern banning of men’s social clubs and the like is a regulation of friendship, but it was not done on the basis of friendship or the fact that women were being excluded from the whatever emotional bonding that was taking place — it was done on the basis of money: business contacts were made and deals were brokered in these male domains, and women who were now in those male professions were in theory being disadvantaged.
The redefinition of marriage is a done deal, but those who blame heterosexuals, not homosexuals, for redefining it are pretty much on target. Once it was accepted by society (including churches) that marriage was about an emotional relationship combined with a business contract — and that having a child was a separate choice that was only incidentally related to that marriaige — there was little ground to stand on when every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted in on the action, in any combination. Invoking God and morality in a Godless and immoral world only hastened the crumbling.
Only by looking objectively at why marriage law has always existed in every culture in human history — across ethnic and religious and historical lines — could marriage law have been preserved as it was. We will now be reaping the whirlwind of the abject inability of out secular and religious leaders to defend what should have been an entirely defensible institution.
Well, I just don’t agree.
Marriage needs to be a non government institution.
My opinion.
If so, the gays will have no leverage to require Arlene’s Flowers to make bouquets for the boys.
And if good order between persons is the only reason for marriage, then why wouldn’t gay marriage be normal and expected. Gonna be gays, like it or not. Why not keep order between them?
Isn’t this the original caselaw of Windsor..sure it is..
I don’t think good order is a good argument for government protecting gay marriage.
It is obvious that government needs to be involved in disputes and property matters between persons. Government doesn’t need to decide if people love each other and want to express a commitment to each other. It only needs to recognize contractual matters.
Again, I see no reason government needs to recognize and protect a personal relationship and require Arlene to sell flowers to that relationship.
Marriage has been a government institution of some sort or another for all of recorded history, in every culture. This means it serves a purpose for it to be so. This is why there are common law marriage laws — the state has an interest in declaring couples to be married whether or not they seek that recognition. Maybe humanity has moved beyond needing marriage law, but I don’t think so. The alternative is for every law regarding spousal property rights and child support and the like to be subject to individual legal contracts — most people cannot even manage to take out a simple do it yourself will, so I don’t see that ending well.
If marriage is to become an institution with no legal implications (which is what you are advocating), then the entire complex system of laws and protections that surround marriage would have to be somehow replicated from scratch, and somehow without reference to marriage or something that looks like it. I have little faith that such a thing could be done in our legislative bodies.
And this is ultimately why states will not opt to achieve equality by abolishing marriage as a legally recognized institution (which is an oprion they all have). It will be easier to deal with the nonsense that arises from the 3% of the population that is gay than to attempt to rewrite law for the other 97%. It may be that Christians will just be unable to be cake decorators, wedding planners, wedding photographers, in bands that play for weddings, etc. Worse tragedies have befallen Christians in our history…
George gave a really generous donation to the Entertainment Fund for Cultural Anthropologists when he came out with this howler: “Marriage is the fundament of all civilization. It needs and has always had special protection from all sane governments, whether they be monarchies, republics, tyrannies, or mere tribal councils. “
You’re welcome. Those were rather profound words; I’d be happy for anyone to use them as talking points, especially since they are true.
MARRIAGE has nothing special to do with civilization..It’s a feature, but not a “fundament,” of all so-called UNcivilized groupings as well, as are eating drinking, sleeping, laughing, crying….why,,in our most advanced civilizations they even practice so-called “same-sex” marriages, and “fundaments” may play an important part there as well!
Your Grace, Have you always been obtuse or did you become so as a result of your ordination?
George, I don’t kno how they teach English usage in Texas, but where I went to school, “fundament” usually meant bun, bottom or hinder or kiester or, as in German, “the hand upon which one sits.”
Oklahoma, Your Grace, Oklahoma.
‘…scotus will figure it out eventually.” That’s a terrifying thought. We might as well head for the hills while there’s still a chance.
This is an ad hoc pastoral document, designed to deal with points of pressing concern. I do not believe Metropolitan JOSEPH had in mind to address every question associated with this subject.
The specific directives are addressed chiefly to the discipline of the priests of the Archdiocese.
Comparative silence with respect to the laity suggests that the Metropolitan wisely intends, for now, to leave the concerns of the laity to the guidance of their priests.
He knows he can trust his priests.
Why, pray tell, would he find it necessary to tell priests to not attend a secular gay wedding?
Apparently, he does not trust them as much as you say.
Or is the opinion that the statement is a logical consequence from poserville a more accurate reflection?
The other answer is well, not that much trust. But, of course, neither answer is really all that great for an audience that might scrutinize a bishop.
And I’ll get the overthinking it response, but to preface, overthinking is done when others underthink.
I’m sticking with poserville.
And then you guys wonder why young people are a decreasing population.
Unneeded sir.
I’m sticking with your statement as fact.
Let’s revisit.
He knows he can trust his priests (to behave well and avoid gay weddings).
“Why, pray tell, would he find it necessary to tell priests to not attend a secular gay wedding?”
Simple. Because he knows it would give the homosexual ceremony the imprimatur of an authentic marriage.
You assert over and over again that the priest’s attendance at the ceremony is a matter of moral indifference. Yet the volume of words you’ve expended opposing Met. Joseph shows the opposite is true.
Met. Joseph sees this even if you don’t, thus the instructions to his priests.
I think Mr. Fall’s point was: why does he need to tell them?
On the other hand, it may be intended as a statement to the larger community.
You dodged the matter of trusting priests which I made clear to be the point.
And you did so with a lie really-use care Fr. Jacobse. I did not suggest it was moral indifference ever. I asserted that an Orthodox priest should tell the hypothetical gays that invite him to a wedding that he cannot bless it. Go back and reread my posts. I never ever suggested moral indifference.
Of course, you sir, know the truth is the instances are nearly going to be never. The one we know of was a priest’s own child. Talk about being in a horrible pickle there. I’d go and tell my own child I would not bless such a union, so that is moral indifference?
And wisdom tells us the statement is really only meant for a different audience.
Well done-the dodging that is..
Why would a homosexual expect his father who is a priest to attend? Is is because homosexuals have this thing about strong-arming people into doing things they don’t want to do?
I’ve been invited to homosexual and adulterous weddings of friends and family members and I declined, stating my reasons. It’s really not a hard thing to do. “We must serve God rather than man.”
Here’s a test. Can you picture the Mother of God, or Saint Paul, or the Forerunner sitting by in a pew, smiling while watching two men attempt to publicly proclaim and seal their sexual union? It’s not a difficult answer.
Many need to stop with this idolatrous image of Christ as a spineless, permissive nice-guy.
Ages-you responded to me with total lies.
I never suggested anyone bless a gay marriage.
In fact, I said the opposite.
It’s not intentional. I honestly cannot tell where you are coming from half the time. At best you are drawing too fine of lines when we need bold ones.
Met. Joseph should have gone further and banned all Orthodox from attending gay weddings.
Ages:
HE WOULDN’T DARE.
“Woe to thee Bethsaide, woe to the Capernaum…it will be worse for you on the day of judgment that it was for Sodom and Gomorrha.”
“And so shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, that they may become one flesh.”
Note, in the latter statement Jesus said nothing about “cleaving” unto his roommate, his catamite, his girlfriend, his concubine, mistress, lover, etc.
It seems to me that your increasingly shrill tones means that many of us have pricked your conscience. If so, there is no reason to delay repentance.
Well, I think we differ on a ban to all. I just said no Orthodox person should bless such a union.
And Ages, I have been clear on my position. Fact is, you don’t agree so you don’t see well.
I find attendance to be a case by case matter.
Met. Joseph trusts his priests but clear directives are always useful. In fact, the directive makes it easier for the priest because the responsibility of saying no is shared by his bishop. You seem to be trying to find fault where there is none.
I find fault because on one hand it is suggested priests are trusted, but a public directive is deemed necessary.
I don’t think it was well thought out.
I think it should have said no Orthodox person can give a blessing to gay unions.
I think it said what it said to make an audience of the righteous applaud.
It did nothing for the sinner.
Look at Ages post in response to me, for example. He has himself believing that I am portraying Christ as weak, when you have suggested priest’s are….
Public directives are very common and don’t imply a lack of trust at all. Listen closely to the epistle during Liturgy for a few weeks. They are packed with directives.
Following your logic, wouldn’t that imply distrust of the entire Church? The real reason is that the clergy lend the imprimatur of acceptance to the ceremony by their attendance. The laity doesn’t have that measure of authority.
You responded to only a part of my post.
I agree the epistle is a lesson/directive.
Truth is, no Orthodox person should bless a gay wedding.
Dan, it is silly to suggest that a set of directives implies lack of trust or that the absence implies trustworthiness.
Every professional society or discipline has a code of ethics and extensive directives for proper behavior. I glance at mine when in a new situation or if there has been an update, primarily to see if there is something that isnt self-evident. Most things are blindingly obvious and common sense. I otherwise never even think about them. Directives and guidelines for behavior are the mark of a professional trade.
Probably 95% or more don’t need any such directives, and will stay within then through an internalized sense of what is proper behavior for their profession. Quite frankly guidelines are written for the other 5%. Of that 5%, knowledge of the guidelines keeps the behavior of 75% within those guidelines even if they think they are stupid and intrusive. And 25% of that 5% will just do what they want regardless — in their case the guidelines are a way to give them the sack, with their not being able to plead ignorance.
For what it’s worth Fr, I imagine the vast majority of Antiochian priests are relieved with the fact that His Eminence went into so much detail. For one thing, it means that he has their backs, for another, it prevents the Laodicean-inclined from engaging in crap-weasel sophistry.
Clergyman Jacobse:
Questions.
If an Orthodox priest attends a secular STRAIGHT wedding, does he thereby give it any kind of “imprimatur”?
If an Orthodox priest recognizes a decree of divorce, and remarries the divorcee, does he not thereby give his “imprimatur” to the secular legal system deciding WHO IS, and WHO IS NOT married?
You see, OOM, this is what I mean by “crap-weasel” comments/actions/whatever. This is what people like Wheeler engage in to always try and throw a spanner in the works with any clear directive, mainly because they don’t believe in the directive in the first place. What they want is to do what they want and they need to find the flaw –no more how minute–in order to justify their defiance of Truth.
It’s really different than teenagers playing “baseball” when it comes to making out. And about as dignified.
GM:
Well, don’t kill the messenger. In my experience Orthodox praxis IS flawed and inconsistent, as you suggest. Dare I mention all the Jews/Muslims who are married in Orthodox churches to their Christian partners after being “baptized/chrismated” merely for appearance’s sake? And what about the Orthodox who marry non-Christians in civil ceremonies (only) and are allowed to come to the chalice – a practice which is de rigueur in many parishes in the U.S.A.?
I’ll answer that one (excuse me Clergyman Jacobse): why yes, an Orthodox priest attending a Protestant wedding is giving it his “imprimatur.” It’s a wedding (a real wedding I mean). Nothing illegal, unethical or immoral about weddings in and of themselves.
Does that nean that when St Paul preached at the temple to the Unknown God (it turned out to be the temple of the god Mercury) that he was giving his imprimatur to Grecian paganism?
Where in the book of Acts does it say that St. Paul preached at that temple? You must be using one of them there modern translations, Vladyka… And I would love to see the reference that it was a temple to Mercury. Anything I have read indicates that the Greeks had a catch-all to make sure no god got missed. Kind of like our All Saints commemorations.
He preached at the Areopagus.
It’s heartening that GM equates a Protestant marriage with one of the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox church. My question, however, concerned SECULAR (courthouse) weddings of straight couples.
Exactly right George. OOM thinks the primary categories are secular and sacred when in fact they are natural and sacramental. A natural marriage (one male, one female) is affirmed even when not performed in an Orthodox Church. In fact, there is no sacramental apart from the natural. The sacramental dimension elevates the natural — bread and wine become the body and blood, and so forth.
OOM’s problem is that he refuses to see that same-sex couplings are unnatural and can never constitute a natural marriage (and therefore a sacramental marriage), the decrees of the State notwithstanding. The secular vs. sacred distinction leapfrogs this understanding and allows him to argue that the legal codification of same-sex marriage does in fact constitute a marriage. It doesn’t.
OOM won’t accept this so his argumentation rises no higher than endless complaints that the Church won’t accept it either. I don’t understand why he doesn’t join up with the Episcopalians. He would feel right at home there. They believe everything that he argues the Orthodox should believe.
Clergyman Jacobse:
So a second and a third remarriage are natural and “affirmed,” but not a fourth, huh? Clergyman Jacobse’s category of the “natural” is just as arbitrary as any other category. Any number of reasonable criteria could be used to judge what is and what is not “natural” in marriage, aside from whether or not the sex is of the type oriented towards reproduction. Clergyman Jacobse delights in the terminology of the Scholastics. At least the RCC unlike Jacobse’s church is consistent in its application of natural law (as understood by the RCC): contraception is verboten and one marriage only.
Clergyman Jacobse:
Clergyman Jacobse doesn’t understand lots of things. He’s so busy setting up Internet institutes, it must leave little time for reflection. He doesn’t seem to realize that my opinion on same sex marriage reflects that of most American Orthodox.
Well, OOM, it is very sad that you and perhaps other so-called ‘Orthodox’ feel entitled to your opinions. How very American it is to cling to our opinions and to value polls of the popularity of ideas, however destructive and manifestly false.
The end is drawing near for you, for me, for all of us – at which point no man’s opinion will save him from the fearful Light of Truth. Not mine, not yours, and certainly not popularity polls.
Mark 10:2-4:
…
Brian:
Thanks for bringing that up, Brian. You are right, UNLIKE METROPOLITAN JOSEPH’S CHURCH, JESUS OPPOSED DIVORCE UNEQUIVOCALLY.
Wow! If Jesus was that strict on divorce, I wonder what He’d say about sodomy!
OOM: first rule of holes: when in one, stop digging.
OOM,
I can assure you that Brian is not “right” about much of anything. Brian remains in the process of repentance and sincerely hopes you will join him in his hope of repentance, laying aside his prideful opinions and conforming himself to the image of Christ.
GM:
GM is a slow learner; we’ve had this exchange of ideas before. Has GM actually READ the Gospels? Jesus says NOTHING about sodomy in them, and, try as he might, GM DOESN’T SPEAK FOR JESUS.
Second things first. It really doesn’t matter what the prevailing opinions might be since the definition of natural marriage isn’t determined by popular opinion. It is determined by both natural law and fundamentally the decrees of God mediated through the moral tradition of the Church. If people don’t understand this then they need to be taught. If people refuse this, well, there is always the Episcopal Church.
Moving on to the first point. The difference between natural marriage and “so called same-sex marriage” (the polite way of putting it) is grounded in the biological difference between male and female. It takes one man and one woman to create a child. A male to male or female to female sexual coupling is naturally sterile (not the same thing as infertile); it can never create a child. In fact, even if the same-sex couple decide on a child through surrogacy or insemination, the child will *always* possess the genetic code of only one parent. The child in other words has a father or mother he will never know.
Your comments about divorce and other elements don’t really support your case either. Policies on divorce assume a natural marriage. They don’t militate against natural marriage in the ways you seem to think they do.
Marriag between a man and a woman is never a sin. There may be factors in the lives of the people which create spiritual problems but the marriage itself is not the issue.
Remarrying divorced folks is not a validation of the divorce but a recognition of the people’s weakness and a mercy (hopefully) founded on the repentance of those involved.
All of you who use the red herring of remarriage within the Church in an effort to get support for the desecration of homosexual unions ought to drop it. The is no connection. Totally different.
Now if you want to have a conversation on the virtues of continence and celibacy that would be different. Homosexual unions are already out of that conversation.
Yes, Michael Baumann, remariages of persons not divorced on grounds of adultery are, though condemned by our Saviour, not “connected” with homosexual unions, which it was left up to St Paul to cite.
By the way, HOW do you reconcile Jesus Christ’s statement that he who marries someone divorced for any reason other than adultery commits ADULTERY, with your dogmatic decree “Marriage between a man and a woman is never a sin?” NEVER? REALLY?
Yes Michael is clearly wrong.
Not all marriage is right. I’ll skip the examples unless challenged.
Lots of marriages are poor and for even sinful purpose. Of course, this may make gays happy and Fr Hans mad, but heterosexual, natural couplings are not all something the church would bless; unless blindly.
The statement that a heterosexual marrage is never sinful is of course incorrect. I think what he meant to say is that it is never the heterosexual part of it that is sinful, but rather something else. Whereas with a homosexual “marriage”, one needs no further information to know it is sinful. But I think Mr. Bauman’s detractors already know that and are being wilfully obtuse.
Actually, the way my brother’s ex-wife treated him and the children (she would argue here), any remarriage for her would be a far greater sin than a homosexual, monogamous union. This will be hard for many of you on the right.
Of course, it is apples and oranges, but you can’t suggest a homosexual union is simply just inherently more sinful than any heterosexual marriage and get my agreement.
Keep in mind I am the guy saying a homosexual union must not be blessed.
But as for sin, my former sister in law wins.
The sinfulness of the people entering the marriage can and often is a problem but that does not make marriage itself sinful. Even St Paul recognizes this in his directive to those unequally yoked.
Homosexual unions are intrinsically sinful and there is no economia possible.
As far as the teaching of Jesus on divorce and adultery that is the way it should be in all cases at all times but when our hearts are too hard there is mercy through repentance so subsequent marriages can still be blessed by God and the Church.
Such economia can be too lax just as failure to provide economia can be too strict. Since my marriage and continued communion is the result of a judicious application of such mercy I am biased no doubt. Following Bp Tikon however, I am an adulterer, my wife an adulteress. There is a certain reality to that for as wonderful and blessed as our marriage is both my wife and I are quite cognizant of the fact we have can never know the fullness we might have had. A certain adulteration has taken place.
Still we are even more aware that God’s mercy through the Church heals. For that we give thanksgiving each day for we were dead and now we are alive.
The Orthodox church blesses SERIAL MONOGAMY. Is it “natural”? What’s your evidence?
The text and intent of Met. Joseph’s letter seems very clear and commendable, but I can’t help but wondering, if Jesus was invited to a wedding of friends or relatives, or even strangers, and the couple was of the same gender, would He have attended. My suspicion is that, judging from the company He occasionally associated with, the outcasts, sinners and down-trodden, He would have attended. Jesus did not condone the activities of sinners, but neither did He absent Himself from their company.
There would not have been such an abomination in Jesus time on earth. Even if someone had tried such a thing, no one would have gone. He likely would have saved the folks from being stoned, and then commanded them to go and sin no more.
Sean your mind is infected with the myth of progress and an incredible degree of presentism.
Sean, this is a conclusion that far exceeds the evidence. How can you assume that because the Gospels say that our Lord occasionally ate with tax collectors and other sinners–and was criticized by some for it–that He would have attended, let’s say, an orgy and tacitly approved it by His silence? He says He cam to call sinners to repentance and whenever he associated with tax collectors and sinners it was to call them to follow Him, to amend their ways and sin no more. He is never shown as silent as we tend to be because His love and zeal was and is greater than ours. May ours increase to be like His.
lxc
Comparing a gay wedding to an orgy is really not right. Takes the wind out of the argument entirely.
“It is this exclusive union of love which alone is fertile”
And what about those marriages that are childless? People who are beyond child-rearing don’t suffer any scrutiny at the chalice or in the parish hall. Is Your Eminence saying that there is no love if there is no children? Is this what you mean by “exclusive”?
“-and thus the nursery of the human race until the end of time.”
“Nursery?” Are we talking about trees or people here?
“Any other so-called “marriage,” including so-called same-sex marriage, is a forgery and death-dealing, sterile and doomed to frustration and the ruin of body and soul of its participants.”
And your proof would be, Your Eminence? I’ve known gay couples who have been together for over 50 years through thick and thin. There was no “death-dealing,” sterility”, “doomed to frustration,” or “ruin of body and soul.”
There was however, LOVE, COMPASSION and CARING, and the desire to give children a loving supportive home.
Where are you getting your facts from, Metropolitan Joseph? Scripture? Abraham, Joseph, David and Solomon had more than one wife and concubines to boot, but nobody tries to scrape them off their icons.
It seems this admonition is a little one-sided here and therefore neither moves nor impresses me as it has been done by others out of ignorance, fear and hatred. It is more than second-handed; it is inaccurate, misleading, unfair, unsupported and just plain WRONG.
Nicholas–so aggressively literal and carnal. I am in a marriage, blessed by God, that began 6 years ago when my wife and I were each 62. It is, by God’s grace, incredibly fertile and fecund just not with natural children. The mystery of the synergy of God-man-woman is far beyond what we normally consider it to be. Marriage is so much more than the man and woman getting together to make babies with the blessing of the Church. It is, or can be, at the center of God’s command to us to form community that dresses and keeps the earth raising all up to Him in thanksgiving.
Marriage is fecund in a pnemonous manner that includes the Cross.
Met Joseph is spot on!
First of all, congratulations on your marriage. Many years.
As far as your comment that I am “aggressively literal and carnal,” this makes no sense at all. Metropolitan Joseph’s statement needs to be addressed because facts are ignored and generalities are embraced.
Metropolitan Joseph is not “spot on,” he’s just spotty.
Do you really believe the church should praise male on male anal intercourse?
Or female on female oral genital stimulation?
I think you are trying to defend the indefensible by rejecting the directive et al.
I took exception to the playground portion because a priest should say I cannot bless.
You expect a Sam Smith wedding ceremony in the Orthodox church?
What you are expecting is as perverse as the practices themselves.
And the banner of intolerance(hatred, fear, ignorance) is false. I don’t care what you do. But you cannot force others to see these as beauty, or celebrate them.
It is not like black civil rights either. When you walk down the street, there is no sign on your head saying I like to screw dudes. If you were to wear such a sign, you ought to be rebuked just as I if I wore a sign saying I like to screw women.
Oh, Daniel, I missed all that!! Who said they believed that “the church should praise male on male intercourse?” Citation,please. Same for your “female oral genital stimulation.”
I know, I know, since Freud and Co., sexual behavior is EVERYTHING, but we shouldn’t put what WE imagine onto other peoples’ tongues, even if our Church puts sex on the front burner.
Nicholas is defending gay marriage. And if so, I am asking a rhetorical question about what the church would be blessing.
It is a fair question…you don’t like my bluntness?
I have no problem with gays getting married. I don’t think the Orthodox church ought to.
Can you explain a reason it ought to bless two men loving each other?
The gay movement has long done its best to get the act out of dialogue. It is gross, that is why its shhhh!
On the subject, the instance of oral, head, and neck cancers is 8.6 times more common for men that have had oral sex with more than 5 women.
The church would do more to have a directive on heterosexual marriage it seems.
“Nicholas is defending gay marriage.”
Well, I’m certainly not defending gay promiscuity.
funny how you twisted that into something it wasn’t
“Do you really believe the church should praise male on male anal intercourse?
Or female on female oral genital stimulation?”
Daniel, I think you’re a bit obsessed by the above. This reminds me of the writings of Augustine who thought human beings were born dirty because they entered this world “between the urine a
I am not asking anyone to bless stimulation of anything. Just love, carrying and commitment.
But loving what? Caring about what? Commitment to what?
Sin.
You would have the church bless sin? Why do you so hate your fellow-man and desire that he be condemned?
“You would have the church bless sin? Why do you so hate your fellow-man and desire that he be condemned?”
I never said, the Church should bless sin. You are putting words in in my mouth. I do not hate my fellow man–you do. By demonizing them with ignorant rhetoric and by not paying attention to my postings.
There are many kinds of love; even the Church has to admit that. So do not bore me with silly questions.
It isn’t my obsession.
It is just preferred by gays to slam heteros anytime heteros bring it up. I learned a long time ago that homosexuals are not pleased when heterosexuals discuss the act and place any adjectives in front of it – like ugly.
You cannot expect the church to bless love, caring, and commitment while conveniently overlooking sex acts.
There is nothing wrong with the church defining marriage differently than the state. For this I make gays mad and the reactionaries here mad-adding enormously to my list of friends (ha!). The gays want to be considered normal by all-ain’t happening Nicholas. The reactionaries want homosexuals to be straight-don’t see that succeeding either.
Live and let live. It works both ways. The church should be able to define marriage as it sees fit. And I don’t see any reason to ask a small percentage of the population to change its behavior for the pleasure of anyone.
So, Nicholas, in advocating this blessing of love, caring and commitment–which none would oppose and, inf fact, all Christians espouse–are your disconnecting these affective decisions from sexual intercourse and an openness the procreation of children? I ask the question because I recently heard a young woman claiming to be a “Lesbian” and in a three-decades long committed and exclusive relationship with her “Lesbian” partner though there relationship has involved, she said, no sexual intimacy. If this is true, it indicates a certain disambiguation which causes confusion because some of us would not consider this relationship an expression of Lesbianism (i.e homosexuality at all) but merely friendship and devoted, sisterly devotion.
In any event, such a relationship cannot be marriage, which involve a man and a woman becoming one flesh most perfectly (God willing) in a child produced from their marital embrace and uniting their DNA.
This is why we have public wedding ceremonies blessed by Christ in the Church to which all members of the parish are invited and at which families are present as witnesses in hopes of the unification and continuance.
Friendships are beautiful and good and can be very spiritually fruitful but we do not typically formalize and bless them with public ceremonies because they do not physically unite families in the hope of progeny. Marriage should involve love, caring and commitment, but it entails a good deal more and it does not belong solely to the partners as friendship does, but in fact belongs to the families and the community as a whole in a way that friendship does not.
Christ is in our midst,
lxc+
I once knew someone who came to think he was homosexual simply because he developed a deep friendship with another male he knew. He had no father figure or brothers, he had a bad experience dating a female classmate at some point, so he had nothing to do with these feelings except to think it was sexual attraction. When the feelings weren’t reciprocated he was devastated.
Unfortunately our culture has destroyed all concept of platonic love and friendship. If it’s not sexual it’s not real, in essence.
Ages,
How true this is. Homosexual attraction is primarily a sexualized emotional longing. Men need to bond with other men. But the general absence of fatherhood, the inability of so many Western/American men who know how to be men, makes male bonding and friendship so rare in 21st century America.
Understanding homosexual urges as sexualized emotional longing has helped me to understand this phenomenon much better. It also helps to explain why homosexuality is not tolerated in cultures where male bonding still exists and where it is accepted — Latin America, Eastern Europe/Russia, Islamic cultures, India, etc. In these societies, men bonding with men exists, is quite common, and is encouraged.
In the neutered and feminized West, most male clubs are gone (they are so sexist!), all-male colleges and high schools are dying out, so many men have no place or no outlet to hang out with and bond with male friends of their own age, aside from maybe bars. The end result is men who don’t know how to be men.
This is one of the reasons I can’t stand modern western Protestantism — to such a large degree, it promotes a neutered, feminized man. It does not teach young boys or young men how to be men in the model of Christ. And that is exactly what they and we need. The best thing for a young man who needs to learn how to be a man is to follow Christ through His Church.
Texan Orthodox,
I have posted this so many times en I am sick of reading it, but you are pulling “science” – socio-cultural fraud – directly from your derriere. There is absolutely no evidence that what a single word of what you suggest is pertinent, truthful, clinically sound, or even by any stretch of the imagination (and Edward, please sharpen Occam’s proverbial Razor) in the ball park. And I have been asking for five long years for the evidence – from psychiatry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, from the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, and our Holy Tradition – that anything post-natally & environmentally plays any role whatsoever in the inclination, preponderance, or development of homosexuality. No one has demonstrated one bit of evidence. And why? Because it does not exist. What little information we have is bio & epigenetic information only; some individuals are vulnerable, this we know, and that is all we know. The rest is anecdote, speculation, and again on this site, unsupportable “theology” bordering on lunacy and hatred. And to be honest, as the science continues to improve in the fields of genetics, epigenetics, psychiatry, and neurology, I no longer feel compelled to correct only but the most outrageous. It does not apply to all homosexuals, blah, blah, blah, but it should be enough that even the silliest should be coming to their senses. No, we will not change our anthropology our our theology, but at least we could begin to start speaking like our heads do not rattle when we walk.
To be fair, do you think any research that finds homosexual behavior anything but normal would be accepted at least here in the West?
For example, many boys and girls have same sex friends while they are young. If and I say if and only if, homosexuality were found to be a developmental phase or rut, would that be accepted? And then would it be okay for people in a developmental rut to act on it and marry? What if the rut were deemed permanent? Lots of very fair, impartial questions if you ask me.
Gay activiism will put the understanding of homosexuality back a few hundred years here. It will only be in other countries where study will amount to understanding.
They want it to be normal and nothing more.
No Google search required, its is an opinion.
Daniel,
Let’s be absolutely clear in our distinction: you speak of homosexuality relative to our fallen humanity and this broken world. Period. It is only “normal” in the context of the “fallen man,” and can neither be attributed nor ascribed to the desire, intention, or will of God, and there will be no homosexuality in the Kingdom which is to come. Writing about the nature of evil, Fr. Florovsky wrote that God knew that any level or form of human intervention would be forever insufficient, necessitating the sacrifice of the Only-Begotten Son for us and our salvation. I cannot emphasize enough that homosexuality is a consequence of our fallen humanity and not according to our nature by creation, “as it was in the beginning.”
As to your question, the reality is that publishing is what drives academic institutions: first & foremost is funding, recognition & reputation, acknowledgment in the academic community, and secondarily applied to each individual scholar (Nobel Drive running through UCSD & La Jolla is done for a reason). Obviously, the “hotter” the topic and the ability to predict (the submission & referee process is usually one year from start to acceptance) or procure an expedited submission is essential. Thousands of academic articles are published every year – obviously the more prestigious the journal, the more significant the article, blah, blah, blah.
“Acceptance” in the scientific community is significantly different than the general media. When you say, “any research that finds homosexual behavior anything but normal would be accepted at least here in the West,” perhaps in a media that increasingly reflects a societal “normalization” and influenced by a university’s and a journal’s PR depts. What they continuously ignore, however, is the cautionary note upon which most research articles end, calling for further research! But I agree that because of the LGBT community influence on the media “Gay activiism will put the understanding of homosexuality back a few hundred years here.”
Finally, my point has always been as someone who objectively examines research outside the context of my “personal experience,” but as someone inside the Church, and who sees patients as well. To read that “there is no homosexuality,” “they make it [homosexuality] their identity,” “the devil convinces them they are homosexual,” “science is attempting to introduce an excuse,” is anecdote & individuals attempting to understand themselves. It would further seem that a certain pastoral approach is to “join” these anecdotes (primarily “There is no homosexuality so you can’t be homosexual”) i.e. to seek repair rather than to seek abstinence, purity, single-mindedness, and repentance. I would say the number of times you ask “if,” Daniel, pretty much sums it up.
Texan Orthodox you’re very close. Men do indeed need to bond together but first, fathers and sons must bond in such a way that the son will not go out later in life looking for affection from other men, a quest which always ends in failure. Gay men often fail to bond with straight men because straight men very much like affectionate friendship but gay men are looking for strong men to love who will, in turn, love them back. This powerful need for love from another man often ruins what might otherwise have been a good male/male friendship. As C.S. Lewis observed, “Left to its natural bent affection becomes in the end greedy, naggingly solicitous, jealous, exacting, and timorous. The greed to be loved is a fearful thing.” The conventional wisdom in the gay community has always been and always will be, “Never fall in love with a straight man because he will never fall in love with you.” Many, many gay men have to learn this lesson over and over and over.
Gregory,
“Men do indeed need to bond together but first, fathers and sons must bond in such a way that the son will not go out later in life looking for affection from other men, a quest which always ends in failure.”
You are correct — this is so true. This point is exactly why these men need to grow close to their Heavenly Father through Christ — to know and to experience from their Heavenly Father this love which they so desperately seek and need, as they never got it through God’s earthly representative in their own lives (their biological dad). Only Christ can save (literally) in this situation.
Seeking this love from other men (instead of from God) always results in failure, sadness, and further desperation. And yet our society tells these struggling men to continue to seek this love from other men — they are gay, it’s ok! — such a travesty and such a disservice to humanity, which (one day) our society will be called to account for.
Bingo! Texan Orthodox.
Years ago I listened to a talk Fr. Hopko gave wherein he talked about the apparent promiscuity of prostitutes. He insightfully observed that what was actually happening was that these women were actually going from one man to the next in quest of something that they failed to get in their formative years. What they failed to understand was that, at this point in their lives it was too late; no mere mortal man could fill in that blank. Only Jesus Christ could do that now.
It has always been my contention and firm belief that what passes for promiscuity among gay men is this same relentless quest for a singular affection which no mortal man can provide; they were supposed to have been given it in their formative years by their fathers. The cause of the father’s failure is largely academic at this point. Here, and now, the only answer is Jesus Christ.
This failure and, in many cases, refusal to turn to Christ is the real sin, the real missing of the mark of same-sex attraction. But, I must add, that any one who persists in holding on to his or her particular sin rather than choosing Christ is also guilty of this huge error and further compound that error by consoling themselves that at least they are not homosexuals or whatever.
The struggle is a difficult one. If my witness is to be believed it is a life of falling down and getting back up—over and over and over again. But, as strange as it must surely sound, I take consolation that I am not alone. When I stand in an Orthodox church and look around at the iconographic “great cloud of witnesses ” and hear contemporaneous testimony of my brothers and sisters in the Church who struggle in their own way to slog through their own difficult lives, I realize that I am in good company-very good company indeed. In short, I take comfort that I struggle along with the “usual suspects” in this broken world.
As I see it, there are four groups of people who are, for all intent and purposes, the enablers of the delusion which is homosexuality:
The first of course are same-sex attracted folks themselves, and if you could feel the powerful dynamics of our dilemma it would be easy to see why so many of us desperately cling to it. In my life time four of my acquaintances ended their lives because they despaired ever finding the love their hearts otherwise naturally yearned for. And it wasn’t for lack of trying. It’s just that they committed all their energies and their hearts into looking for it from those who did not have it to give. They looked “for love in all the wrong places” as the song goes. They didn’t turn to Christ because they lived in a world which, with the aid of their own “Christian” churches, had long since succeeded in discrediting Christ by persistent mocking, much of it in the guise of scholarship.
The second are to be found among the heterosexual population. Some months back, a young Muslim man, a student at one of our better universities who was doing all in his power to maintain his sexual virtue in the midst of a collegial culture which was running head long in the other direction, wrote a stinging comment. The bottom line of his comment was that heterosexuals defended homosexual sodomy for no other reason than to protect their own sodomy.
The third group consists of those I would call evil. These are people who cynically promote and enable homosexuality (and any other forms of wickedness) for the sole purpose of corrupting a society and culture which they disdain and even hate. I cannot prove it but I have no doubt that they are lying through their teeth when they claim to respect homosexuals and their lifestyle “choices”. Those who listen to them (indeed all of us) should heed the remarks of G.K. Chesterton who correctly observed that the devil is not only a liar but also a traitor; he is more dangerous to his friends than his enemies.. Those who rely on such individuals are going to be horrified when they discover that these people actually detest them and will throw them under the bus when they are no longer needed.
Perhaps the most dangerous are the nice people among us. We all know them; they’re sweet, kind and loving folks who are squeamish about “judging” and just want to get along. So powerful is this apparently “Christian” desire to go along to get along that, out of otherwise lovely sentiments, they unwittingly commit themselves to enabling others in their illusions…all because they mean well. They would be crushed were they to come face to face with the damage their good intentions had done.
Mr. Manning,
The need for male-to-male love and affection is essential to male anthropology and the creation “as it was in the beginning,” and I personally believe that the loss of the ability of men to relate in a non-sexualized level of love & affection is another cosmically tragic consequence of our fallen humanity. We see the manifestations of this tragedy at every turn and everywhere in our lives as men. But it does not not impact the etiology of homosexuality in any manner other than anecdotally. We are back to the argument of what you, or someone else, or many others perceive is the reason they are/were/could be homosexual. Everyone has an “opinion.” But when you would impose this “opinion” beyond yourself and those you know without having conducted the proper research to eliminate other variables that might be contributing to the the phenomenon – even be discovered as outright responsible – and you mistakenly promote anecdote for the cause, you walk a very dangerous line of promoting serious error. In the case of stigmatizing phenomena such as homosexuality, error can and has been the root of paralyzing prejudice – “S/he looks/sounds/dresses “gay,” and obviously, in a moment’s notice of discovery in science, everything we speculated as correct could be proven wrong, and vice-versa. I am the first to say that what I have presented over several years has application to a specific group of homosexuals with a specific genetic/epigenetic profile and it does not apply to all persons who identify as homosexual. Nevertheless, it is an argument that is more than moderately scientifically strong, and if you are able to refute it, I would love to see your argument. Until that time, I believe you and Ages need to stop generalizing what you cannot demonstrate to be scientifically sound beyond your own anecdote.
M. Stankovich,
May I call you Michael? I gather that is your Christian name. Please call me Gregory. We are, after all brothers in Christ are we not? The only people who address me as Mr. Manning are official types such as government officials, landlords, bureaucrats, and, at one time, bill collectors, whose communications to me invariably begin: “Mr. Manning, It has come to our attention that……”. You wouldn’t happen to number among your friends, acquaintances, or heroes, such types would you?
As I once stated on this blog, I read all that you write and I would consider myself to be the first to champion your impressive, thorough-going knowledge (based, of course, on an impressive command of data, statistics, research, etc.). You are a very useful person; very useful indeed. But there’s something missing.
Some 30 odd years ago, I had the great good fortune to be part of a therapy group mentored by a rather unique individual, a well educated psychiatrist, a man with lots of letters after his name, that sort of thing. But his value as a therapist and a guide actually derived from a singular quality which, to this day, I’ve come to value above all others, namely, wisdom. This wisdom, though undoubtedly informed in some measure by his education, actually arose from his experience as having been, in his words, “a certifiable loonie”. Towards the end of his course of studies in the pursuit of his M.D. he went crazy and he had to be hospitalized. After three years he returned to this world, completed his studies, was awarded an M.D., then completed a lengthy residency in psychiatry. When I joined his group as a “client” I encountered a therapist who, though maddeningly difficult to manipulate was nevertheless astonishingly accessible, warm, sincerely compassionate, and, because of his own battle with his own kind of craziness, manifested authentic empathy. He was, to use an over-used phrase, authentically “in touch with his (frail) humanity”. He was a very well credentialed individual (the details of which he was more than happy to trot out for those who, as he once put it “get a hard-on” over such things), but what made him invaluable to those of us who found ourselves overwhelmed by our respective broken lives, was his compassion and understanding, grounded in wisdom acquired by first-hand experience.
All of this is to say that, in this matter, unless you are prepared to talk about this issue as a man who has spent his life actually burdened with the profound brokenness of same-sex attraction, I am going to ignore you. The readers of this blog are free to choose whom to believe.
May I suggest meeting in the middle?
Don’t you believe Stankovich’ intentions are reasoned? Any idea how many times people here have equated gay with paedophile? Just stating it is like putting a crawler on the hook.
I think your post was great, to the point of ignore.
Anecdotal evidence is not science, but also not valueless. Very often the anecdotal evidence can drive science.
The initial discovery of antibiotics was anecdotal I believe.
But the anecdotal doesn’t mean absolutely or always either.
Gregory,
By your reasoning, unless I have spent my entire “life actually burdened with the profound brokenness of” schizophrenia, autism, cancer, major depression, psychosis, diabetes, sickle-cell-anemia, panic, obsessive-compulsion, chemical dependency or am a woman, African American or diverse in any from you or anyone set before me, I should be ignored. And the foolishness of such reasoning is that you would take the arrogant risk that, in and of yourself – and apparently some like you – share an experience, it is the solution for many or even most. This not an unknown arrogance – many have believed it to be true, so “special” is their condition that only their “insight” is correct and efficacious – but it is an extraordinarily foolish arrogance. It is myopic, yet invites everyone to “choose” between pure anecdote – passionate, unproven, unhelpful, dangerous observation – and objective examination that identifies more likely variables.
Just this one example: what do I tell the considerable men whom I have seen over the years who identify as homosexual, yet have had loving and reciprocal caring relationships with their grandfathers, fathers, and male siblings? And conversely, what do I tell the far greater number of men who have longed their entire lives for a loving relationship with a first-degree male relative, and who by absence, illness, or depravity never received it, yet are not homosexual? There are many examples of homosexual men who have had mentors – from the community, from other families, from their church, from a teacher, and so on who were “masculine” gender models for their entire lives; some had “big brothers” or cousins, boyfriends of female siblings (or mothers, for that matter); while heterosexual males grew up in all-female households with no “modeling” of any sort beside male friends. You imagine you are competent & capable to answer to all these situations based on your personal experience & in the gay community?
What is it we should do with the scientific data that exists regarding vulnerability to homosexuality and the emergent data? Ignore it? Claim it is foolishness? Is it insignificant because I present it and I have not “suffered its “brokeness” myself? Should it not explain why certain individuals are vulnerable to homosexuality and reduce the stigmatization & shame? In effect, you are telling this forum to ignore what I have fastidiously and very carefully presented to change opinion and lesson stigmatization and shame, to be open to people like yourself who have turned to the way of repentance, when your entire qualification is your own personal experience. You will pardon me, Gregory, but that simply is not good enough to be presenting information beyond what happened to you. Period. Not everyone, not most, and from the research, not even a great number of individuals “became” homosexual because of the paucity of male-to-male affection. It simply is not true. If you would “offer people a choice,” then offer the truth. This is not a “competition.” If I am wrong, I will be corrected. The literature, however, bears me out.
I said to you after one of your very first postings on this forum: you are in my prayers daily, and I have never stopped.
Whatever the reasons for people being homosexual, I think we can all agree that homosexual lust and homosexual sex are inherently disordered and sinful, and the Church offers fulfillment that goes far beyond what that life offers—if people are totally willing to give it up and seek after God.
Ages (November 16, 2015 at 6:42 am) says:
Whatever the reasons for people being homosexual, I think we can all agree that homosexual lust and homosexual sex are inherently disordered and sinful, and the Church offers fulfillment that goes far beyond what that life offers—if people are totally willing to give it up and seek after God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We do well to remember that temptation is not the same thing as sin, no matter how ‘disordered’ we think a particular sin might be, since all sin is disordered and disorderly in its defiance of the will of God.
It is a false value for us to single out homosexual deviation as especially disordered, since we must deal with pride and violence, heterosexual abuse (especially of children), stealing people’s property and damaging their lives and honor. These are all disordered passions no more and no less than same-sex attraction, and we must — by God’s grace — resist any temptation to commit such sins.
Still, as St Paul teaches the church at Corinth, we must identify and rebuke our fellow Christians when they fail in virtue lest they perish in their sins, and even expel them from our communities if they will not repent, as harsh as that inevitably must be.
But as the Apostle also observes, ‘We bear this treasure in vessels of clay’ — very fragile vessels indeed for our faith. We must then remember how many saints have observed someone else in sin and said ‘It’s him today, and maybe me tomorrow.’
So let’s be as kind as we can to each other while still being as firm as we must, guided by the love of Christ.
“It is not like black civil rights either. When you walk down the street, there is no sign on your head saying I like to screw dudes. If you were to wear such a sign, you ought to be rebuked just as I if I wore a sign saying I like to screw women.”
Well, I’m afraid it DOES have something to do with civil rights. In the past gays have been denied housing, fired from jobs, denied inheritance among everything by people who think God blesses them for the manner they use their genitals. Gays have been in the past denied civil rights. So have Jews, Africans, Chinese, Mexicans and others who didn’t fit in.
As for badges, you’re a bit late. Hitler already did that and they were more than rebuked; they were murdered.
Hitler?
Desperation?
The argument is simple. You deserve no more or less rights than another man walking down the street.
The real problem is you want others to accept your act as normal. And it is not.
Nicholas that you don’t get my comment shows why I made the comment in the first place. You don’t get marriage in the Church.
Nicholas you seemed confused about natural marriage and unnatural couplings.
Natural marriage (one male and one female) is naturally fertile while homosexual couplings (male-male, female-female) are naturally sterile. There is a difference between fertility and sterility in other words.
Even when a same-sex couple tries for a child (one partner provides the sperm or egg), the child will always have the genetic code of another person outside the relationship.
The inability to conceive children in a natural marriage (male-female) is an anomaly, something outside the norm and considered broken and often a sorrow. However, ‘conceiving’ children in same-sex couplings takes what is sterile and creates an illusion of fertility but a third person is always involved in the creation of the child. The partners might be individually fertile, but the coupling is always by nature sterile.
The sorrow I experienced with my wife in being childless to me points to it being the natural state of marriage. Additionally, going down the road of adoption was having my eyes opened to the great tragedy for all involved. I mean this with the most compassion for all involved in adoption.
sin is going strong.
So is reactionary politics, but I make the distinction.
Oh, what could be nobler than adopting an orphan? There are naked, starving, thirsty, diseased and lost children all over the world, and Christians are devoting all their gifts to exterminating this or that sexual abomination classed in the Scriptures with eating shellfish or pork.
This Monomachian is worried about anal or oral stimulation of the inappropriate sexes—that one is worried “coupling”. Go adopt an orphan and see if you have time for such RIGHTEOUS concerns!
I was waiting for someone to throw in some moral outrage to obfuscate the point.
No, affirming the natural created order of God is not worry “about the anal or oral stimulation of the inappropriate sexes.” That’s a diversion.
This is about clear distinctions and clear understanding. No responsible leader in the Church would take umbrage at what I wrote as you have.
Met. Joseph certainly did not and I am grateful to have a leader who does not bow to the winds of fashion, display faux outrage, or submit to the pressures of political correctness.
His words are clear and true. So are mine. Your scoldings don’t diminish them.
Not interested in orphans–only in establishing righteousness. What I said….
I never heard a Priest say “MY message is clear and true” before.
After that comes “chasing after the wind….”
http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2015/09/stump-priest-shrimp-and-homosexuality.html
For your amusement, Fr. Johannes. I have preferred to stay clear of interchanges regarding homosexuality. The late Met. Phillip’s maxim is good enough for me, “We do not discuss abominations.”
Hey, thanks for link, MIsha! That’s one of my favorite links of “The West Wing.” I like the part where he refers to the “ignorant, tight-ass club.”
“We do not discuss abominations.”
How can he? He’s already made up his mind.
Sounds pretty ignorant and tight-assed to me.
You’re welcome Nick! My favorite scene in the movies regarding homosexuality is in Braveheart when the king takes his son’s lover over to the window to discuss warfare.
So you like to see gays murdered? What a surprise. You’ll notice I didn’t say anything about murder in my postings, i.e., all people who don’t share my opinions should be murdered.
YOU’RE the one who posted “The West Wing” link. Are you bruised because it backfired? “Braveheart” incidentally is about fornication and the so-called “les droits du seigneur.”
How pathetic are your attacks on me.
Nicholas, I’ve often been uneasy about Paul’s assertion about homosexuals (and other sexual sinners) not being able to achieve the kingdom of heaven.
How about this for a secular perspective?
http://takimag.com/article/the_power_of_hiv_positive_thinking-_jim_goad#axzz3sHohtQYk
There’s no hatred in the latter commentary, just statement of several unpleasant facts about the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuals who persist in sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, but they wouldn’t be denied merely by having been afflicted with same-sex attraction.
St. Mary of Egypt would fall under the category of “other sexual sinners.”
No more ignorant or tight-assed than God, or St. Paul.
You may not be aware of this, but of actually adoptable children there are long waiting lists of healthy, heterosexual married couples waiting to adopt. They are many “orphans” in the world, but many countries have closed borders are/or there are not even systems in place for them to be adopted (I assume). The only children that have trouble with being adopted seem to mostly be older children with very special needs…but the point is homosexual “couples” who apply to adopt are taking the spot of heterosexual couples. I am currently in the foster adopt process so this issue is close to my heart. My point is…the orphan issue is not really a good issue for trying to make conservatives feel guilty because I’m sure we can all agree that a homosexual “couple” should not make the waiting list to adopt LONGER for a healthy heterosexual Orthodox married couple. And in addition to healthy families, could be placement in a loving group home or orphanage type care settings for children, as opposed to a disordered anti-family setting.
After reading the continuous cynicism of Wesley J. Smith of the medical profession’s increasing inability to stand against the “progressives” in such matters as abortion, assisted suicide and, ultimately, euthanasia, there has been an interesting new policy statement issued jointly by from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) which addresses treatment and decision making around periviable birth. It was published online October 21st in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“Periviable birth refers to those that occur from 20 0/7 weeks to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation. About 0.5% of all births take place before the third trimester of pregnancy, the authors write. These births account for most neonatal deaths and more than 40% of infant deaths.” It notes that the normal standard for viability have always been gestation age and birth weight, but through continued research in 19 academic centers, a tool was developed that considers “a combination of gestational age, birth weight, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, sex, and plurality, rather than gestational age and birth weight alone.
They recommend, “A multidisciplinary team including obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric providers, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, if available, and neonatologists to provide family counseling. Provide follow-up counseling when there is pertinent new information about the status of the mother or fetus or the newborn’s changing condition. [and notably excluded are the clergy, less than bold enough and undoubted uninformed] “should talk with the parents about “whether their goal is optimizing survival or minimizing suffering.” And finally, “”A decision not to undertake resuscitation of a liveborn infant should not be seen as a decision to provide no care, but rather a decision to redirect care to comfort measures.” When the parents have decided not to have the newborn resuscitated, “individualized compassionate care” should be provided to the infant. This care should include keeping the baby warm, minimizing discomfort, and giving the family as much time with their newborn as they desire.”
I find this statement quite encouraging:
and with the notable exception of the clergy, it speaks well as the antithesis of a Planned Parent mentality, with compassion, yet in consideration of the high risk of the children involved.
“Nicholas you seemed confused about natural marriage and unnatural couplings.”
Father, I assure you I’m not confused. Whenever you talk about natural marriage, I feel you’re talking about animal husbandry. The term, “unnatural couplings” is silly. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom as well, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
You seem obsessed with procreation, or think that is the hallmark of a “natural” marriage.
Well, whenever a man and a woman get together I’m sure the first thing in the minds is kids–it’s attraction and desire and nobody keeps a book of rules on the nightstand they can refer to while they go at it.
“Natural marriage (one male and one female) is naturally fertile”
No it is not. Plenty can go wrong in the old “Be fruitful and Multiply Dept.”
“while homosexual couplings (male-male, female-female) are naturally sterile.”
It doesn’t matter, they can still serve in the church, the community, adopt children and all things that society demands of married couple–even attend PTA meetings. They are many ways they can still be “fertile.”
“There is a difference between fertility and sterility in other words.”
Yes, I have a dictionary too.
“Even when a same-sex couple tries for a child (one partner provides the sperm or egg), the child will always have the genetic code of another person outside the relationship.”
So? You make it seem like it’s a bad thing. If the child is healthy and happy, what’s your point?
“The inability to conceive children in a natural marriage (male-female) is an anomaly, something outside the norm and considered broken and often a sorrow. However, ‘conceiving’ children in same-sex couplings takes what is sterile and creates an illusion of fertility but a third person is always involved in the creation of the child. The partners might be individually fertile, but the coupling is always by nature sterile.”
You know, Father, this rhetoric takes me back almost 40 years–when Anita Bryant started her “Save Our Children” campaign. She used the same jargon: “Homosexuals don’t reproduce, they have to recruit children!”
As stupid as it was, many fools believed her–until she was shown up for the fraud she was and died in obscurity.
You’re not being original Father, I guess I should have realized that when you cribbed the “Adam and Steve” comment.
Well, Nicholas, I am no reactionary,
I don’t get along with Fr Hans much.
But you cannot seriously defend homosexuality with references to the animal kingdom. Why? There are equivalent non-homosexual animal groups for one. For another, dominance displays between apes are not acted out in a permanent sexual fashion or long term ‘loving’ relationships. Lose the animal references; they don’t bode well for your argument. In fact, they sort of destroy it.
As for Anita, yeah, she went too far there.
Nicholas:
“Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom as well, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.”
So does:
Cannibalism
violence
slavery (in some species of ants)
destruction
promiscuity
rape (dolphins do this)
forced abortions
eating of offpring
infanticide
Killing other species for fun (dolphins do it)
culling/killing the weak members of the herd
What’s your point?
You protest too much. The church always has and always will deem homosexuality as inherently disordered and sinful. Those who practice it will go to hell, sadly, regardless of their so-called “fertility” by your bizarre definition.
Repent and be saved. That is the gospel for every person, homosexual or not. You don’t get a carte blanche to sin just because you have a really, really deep desire to do so.
But like always, homosexuals demand special treatment.
Nicholas avers that “Abraham, Joseph, David and Solomon had more than one wife and concubines to boot,” apparently intending to justify polygamy as a status as consistent with the Divine plan as monogamy. However, our Lord said it was not so from the beginning and that “He made them male and female, for which reason a MAN shall leave HIS father and mother and be joined to HIS WIFE and the TWO shall become one flesh.” Besides this we have the record that woes frequently flowed from multiple wives among the patriarchs Hebrew royalty (even for Abraham) and especially for David and Solomon, who was especially warned not to multiply wives and did it anyway to his own chagrin.
Apparently, it is better to stick to the original plan. To deviate is to stray and miss the mark and the wage or consequence of such truancy is inevitably temporal misery–if not even exile or death.
lxc
“Nicholas avers that “Abraham, Joseph, David and Solomon had more than one wife and concubines to boot,” apparently intending to justify polygamy as a status as consistent with the Divine plan as monogamy.”
No, I was not “avering” that. My point was for those who are championing “traditional” marriage do not look at Scripture closely. I do not call it “traditional,” rather I call it “cultural.” I am also not justifying polygamy. Lexie, this is your interpretation.
“same-sex marriage,” is a forgery and death-dealing, sterile and doomed to frustration and the ruin of body and soul of its participants.
I wish Christians were always so direct and courageous with this message – homosexuality is harmful to the one practising it.
Let me reply to myself – lust in heterosexual marriage is also destructive. We should speak of those dangers and the healing power of repentance in Christ for all sin.
Yes, James! It has always been my experience and remains today my conviction that homosexuality was and always will be a failure. When I read the words “sterile and doomed to frustration” I stood up and cheered that someone finally hit the nail on the head! You don’t have to have any religious beliefs at all to realize that homosexuality is a sin, a missing of the mark, because it simply doesn’t work!
Same sex marriage – wow, I am all for it !
I have been having the same sex with the same woman for 39 years.
James, that’s about as silly as the “Adam and Steve” rubbish.
Go back and try harder.
Same sex marriage – Wow, I am all for it !
Been having the same sex with the same woman for 39 years.
James, you’re repeating yourself.