Trivializing Gay “Marriage”

1410487512717_wps_8_Love_you_man_Travis_McIntThere’s an old Japanese saying which Your’s Truly picked up from one of my many commentators: if you sit by the river for long enough, you’re bound to see the bodies of your enemies float by.

File this story under that category. Or supreme irony. Or are Progs that freakin’ stupid? Take your pick; one or the other or all three.

Anyway, it seems that two straight, New Zealand men, Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick, decided to take a walk down the aisle to get gay-married. The reason being that they took a dare which was sponsored by a local radio station so they could win an all expenses paid trip to the International Rugby championship, which will be held next year in that country.

Ironies abound: can you think of any more blokey-Ur-British names than McIntosh and McCormick? These guys could have been in the Black Watch or serving under a Trevor Howard-like Sergeant-Major in a movie like in Zulu or Gunga Din or tossing back Guinness’s in some rural public house in the northern English countryside.

Don’t get me wrong, this whole thing was a joke from start to finish. This being an age without any honor, they thought “what the hell? Why not?” I can’t say I blame them. After all, the whole idea of gay “marriage” is a sick joke at best or a horrible abomination at worst. It’s as idiotic as it is unreal. It can only exist in the sense that calling a dog a banjo makes it a banjo. Oxymorons make more sense. But since we’ve gone so far down the cultural Marxist road to Gomorrah, who gives a damn?

Well, the professional grievance mongers in Big Gay, Inc., certainly do. All of a sudden, they’re going into full freak-out mode, mimicking the best social conservatives from about five years ago. It seems they’ve found their inner Savanarola. Victorian fainting couches and smelling salts haven’t been this popular since, well, the Victorian Age. Next thing you know it’ll be pistols at dawn. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. Being the totalitarians they are, the irony is completely lost on them.

I’ve resigned myself to the fact that it’s basically over as far as Western Civilization is concerned. At this point I see myself as a bystander, watching the canoes go over Niagara Falls one by one, hoping I don’t fall into the river accidentally. Like the little boy who saw that the Emperor had no clothes, I like to point out that not only is he naked but he’s performing an unnatural act. In other words, I’m content to chronicle the decline and fall our once-great civilization. But every now and then I can laugh. And so, thanks to these two blokes, I heartily I offer up a guffaw. Have a Guinness on me, Fellas!


  1. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    I thoroughly enjoy this posting, George, but I wonder if I should!

  2. llya Zhitomirskiy says

    This would be funny if the thing that they were trolling was not such an abomination. Good on them for having the courage to do this, and hopefully the two blokes will be able to marry normally afterwards.

  3. Sean Richardson says

    Once the Marvin vs. Marvin case was brought forth in the early 1970s (even though it was a failed palimony suit) Pandora’s box was opened and the consequences will never be put back. Marriage itself was redefined as a contract between two individuals, married or not, heterosexual or not. Marriage became, or even living together became, a simple agreement between two people. Nothing more and nothing less. How do we then uphold marriage in a traditional Orthodox theological way? I might suggest, and yes I know this will be controversial, that the Orthodox Church cease to be a legal functionary in marriage and become a Godly functionary in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Once we state that we do not have to perform the function of a county clerk or a court judge, then suddenly the Orthodox Church is free to define marriage as it always has, and perform marriages as they should be performed. If people outside the Church want to establish a contract between two people, any two people, that will not affect the Church. Again, I know this will be controversial, but we might remember that in the LDS/Mormon church, they have two marriage ceremonies: one that is the legal one, and one that is their church’s ceremony (a temple marriage). It might not be such a bad idea. Let’s let people outside the Church establish their contracts, and let’s let the Orthodox Church perform the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. There. It’s done.

    • This is done in many countries. The couple has to have a civil ceremony for the state and if wanted, a blessing in the church may follow. I know Germany and England do this.

  4. Steve Knowlton says

    Yes, times have changed. I laughed the other day reading a passage from Solzhenitsyn where he complains that all young people care about these days is “their tape recorders and their disheveled girl friends.” And that was the 1970s. A disheveled girlfriend seems preferable to what you’ve shown us here.

  5. James Denney says

    Lat’s start calling cement blocks pillows. When someone says they are going to hit you in the head with a pillow, what can you expect, a fractured skull or a pleasant buffeting? Words have meanings for a reason. There is no such thing as gay marriage.

    • James, I think the thousands of same-sex couples who love each other and are now able to express this legall, would disagree with you.

      • Tim R Mortiss says

        If a man loves his mistress (and vice versa), does he bring her into the sanctuary and ask the blessing of the congregation?

        No. But why not? They love each other, after all.

        Maybe there’s more to it than that….after all.

      • Estonian Slovak says

        Timothy, if you really mean this, and you are Orthodox, you either need to repent or get out of the Church. It’s really that simple. You cannot be in the Church and make up your own rules as you go along. What if I wanted to be Orthodox and have two wives? After all, scripture does have a precedent for this. Or do you believe that God changed His mind? Or maybe He never spoke to Moses at all?

        • M. Stankovich says

          Estonian Slovak,

          I suggest you acquaint yourself with the pastoral writings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the last decade, which has addressed the difficult situation of couples, who by circumstances of ignorance, social & societal intimidation against believers (e.g. discrimination regarding housing, education, and employment), being raised in radical atheism, and so on, married according to civil law, began & raised families, and lived otherwise “moral,” ethical, and even spiritual lives. When the Church was faced with ever-increasing numbers of these couples and families seeking to unite themselves to the Body of Christ, in the majority of cases, the Russian Orthodox Church wisely, prudently, and in the true spirit of “economy” – “acting in the Master’s household as He would Himself” – acknowledged in this extraordinary situation that these were, indeed, “married” in every sense of the sacramental understanding. They were received into the Church by Confession and the Eucharist and their marriages were blessed.

          I believe that your comments to Mr. Mortiss, a faithful and always eager to learn recent convert, are unjustified and rude. Wherever and whenever the opportunity to show mercy in the interest of salvation arises, and only when it is in the interest of salvation, Mr. Mortiss’ question – “Maybe there’s more to it than that….after all” – is not only legitimate, but essential.

          • Estonian Slovak says

            My reply was not directed to Mr. Mortiss at all. Rather, it was directed to the Timothy who seemed to indicate that nothing is wrong with two people of the same sex in a sexual relationship. I don’t believe Mr. Mortiss said anything of the kind.

            • Estonian Slovak, do re-read M. Stankovich’s words, which are very logical. Same-sex couples do unite for many of the reasons presented by Mr. Stankovich, including hospital visitation, property management, and other legal trappings afforded heterosexual couples, besides genuine love. If you don’t believe that, maybe it is you that should find something else to do on Sundays.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                He never said that timothy. Why don’t you re-read.


                • Sorry, Peter…it’s all part of the discrimination experienced by the gay couples that M. Stankovich refers to. It’s a reality.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Why shouldn’t homosexual fornicators experience “discrimination”?

                    • Estonian Slovak says

                      ANY fornicator shouldn’t approach the Chalice, IF they are actively practicing this sin. I would be even harder on a man and woman shacking up, than on an individual with SSA who is making an honest effort to combat the sin.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Heterosexual fornicators as well.

                    • Michael Kinsey says

                      GO ye forth and multiply is a command of God hardwired in the body. Sex ,done in the sanctity of marriage is not sin. It is not within the wisdom of God to eliminate the ability to procreate. The social stability is harmed with procreation outside of marriage Children need a father and a mother. Gay sex is not part in any manner, within the command of God. It is impossible for gays to please God. Heterosexuals still retain the possibility of pleasing God.. It is disingenuous to equate gay sex with heterosexual fornication The degree of having entered into the great whore is shown by the fact the male and female are not yet plagued with the perversity of homosexuality. They are not the same degree of iniquity. Whose side are you on. I suspect your a gay agenda troll.

          • Mr. Stankovich,

            I am sure you are not in any way inferring that such “economy” be extended to legally married gay couples. Am I making the correct conclusion? A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice my curiosity. Thank you.

            • M. Stankovich says



              • Why does this have a negative rating? If I am reading correctly, Dr. Stankovich is not advocating extending the Church’s economia to same sex marriages. Did 3 of 5 people who read the post want the Church to recognize such marriages, or did people just have trouble following what this concise exchange actually said? ….Or did I have trouble following it?……

          • Estonian Slovak was answering to “timothy”, not to Tim R Mortiss.

          • Michael, Estonian Slovak was not responding to Tim Mortiss, but was telling another poster, timothy, to repent or leave. Please take a moment to review the comment made by “timothy” and note the thread levels.

          • Thomas Barker says

            Well done Michael Stankovich! Der Doktor ist eingetroffen. As Maxwell Smart would say, “missed by that much.”

          • Tim R Mortiss says

            Yes, it was the “other timothy”….

            Mr. Stankovich makes a good point, though, one that put me in mind of Willa Cather’s great book “Death Comes to the Archbishop”, the story of the RC bishop who founded the cathedral in Santa Fe.

            When he first came out to the territory, and would ride circuit, faithful Catholic couples would flock out of the surrounding homesteads to have their marriages solemnized, often bringing along several children. There was a great shortage of priests out on the desert frontier….

          • M. Stankovich says


            Perhaps you have misconstrued my response to James’ question, “I am sure you are not in any way inferring that such “economy” be extended to legally married gay couples.” My response of “yes” was to indicate that “yes,” I was not inferring that my (mistaken) comment to the Estonian Slovak suggested “economy” to homosexual couples – and my apology to the ES. So much for a single-word response to a poorly worded question…

            Had you read me correctly, you would have understood something of the theology of economy – and I would refer you here as well – as it differs considerably from repentance or metanoia [μετάνοια] (derived from the Greek noun νόος (νοῦς) meaning the “mind” as a mechanism of perception & thinking – metanoia literally means to change one’s mind). I have written extensively regarding the issue of same-sex attraction, but I have never “changed my mind” that, while there is no Scriptural or Patristic support for the notion that same-sex attraction is sinful, in and of itself, and a consequence & result of our rebellion & fallen nature and corrupted world, the only sexual activity acceptable to God is that which was, “in the beginning,” between one man & one woman united in the sacrament of Christian Marriage. There is no “economy” for sexual activity & same-sex marriage.

            I will note, however, that having worked recently for a period of time with elderly patients, I came across the phenomenon whereby elderly individuals entered into non-sexual civil union & civil marriage solely for the purpose of health insurance and entitlement benefits; while others legally divorced for no other reason than to save their home (their only significant possession) from federal Medicaid lien regulations when one spouse had to enter an assisted-care facility or nursing home. I find both circumstances equally pitiful in a country such as ours, and have debated the “ethics” of such decisions with our clergy. Somehow, I cannot imagine that with the acceptance of same-sex marriage in so many states, we will not see non-sexual same-sex civil unions & marriage exactly for the same purpose. As I have insisted, this mess is a result of our own silence and complacence regarding moral issues in our society, and the unimaginable is clearly imaginable.

            You are now free, timothy, to return to the defence of your position without me. But certainly, you have my best wishes.

            • Michael,

              You are right. That was a poorly worded question. Glad you were able to read through it.

  6. Michael Kinsey says

    What is not funny, is calling a dog a banjo, insisting it’s a banjo. And claiming 2=2 =5 if they say so. It seems in the culture war this is their principle method of operation in addressing any issue. This wickedness and perversity as a cultural medium, is always unpleasant, and in the case of abortion, murderous. Your right, honor would not even joke about it.

  7. Francis Frost says

    Dear George:

    Well, here we go again. Chicken little time!

    As the Preacher says: “There is nothing new under the sun” Ecclesiastes 1:9

    As a priest once told me there are no new sins, just repeats. A cursory review of ancient Greek literature and art will show that your own ancestors not only permitted; but celebrated Gay sex. Yet, when Christianity came, that all changed. It changed because people heard and saw the truth of the gospel. What is lacking today is our own authentic witness to Christ.

    To look at is practically, how many of our Orthodox brothers ands sisters have been killed or driven from their homes by the gays? NONE. How many have been massacred, tortured or driven into exile by their supposed Orthodox brethren? Hundreds of thousands: in Georgia, Moldova and now in occupied Ukraine.

    Who is worse?

    As the Apostle Paul says: “the person who is sexually immoral sins against his own body” . I Corinthians 6:18.

    The murderer, however has as it were destroyed the whole universe. In Abkhazia entire families towns and cities were systematically massacred, with the assistance and protection of the Russian military. The Holy Martyrs Andrea Kurashvili and Giorgi Adua were tortured and killed. Even today, Metropolitan Isia of Nikozi is held captive in occupied Akhalgori. The death toll in occupied Ukraine is reported over 4,000 and rises daily despite the fictitious “truce agreement”.

    When our Orthodox Church is ready and able to denounce these fratricidal crimes, then and only then will our witness to the sanctity of life resonate with God and man.

    As our Lord told us “ fYou hypocrite, first pull the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to pick the speck out of your brothers eye” Matthew 7:5

    That time may just be dawning on us. The leaders of the Volhyn diocese of the UOC-MP are now publicly challenging Patriarch Kirill over the invasion of Ukraine. We may well be witnessing the fracturing of the ROC into the authentic Christians and the godless “political Orthodox”.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Dear-to-Christ Francis, I find something charming in your Johnny-One-Notedness regarding your veneration of the eternal victimology of the Georgian nation. You never hesitate to bring up the eternal suffering of that nation even if we’re talking about the weather. Careful, or the Anti-Defamation League may start suing you for royalties because you’re incringing on their territory.

      Anyway, you’re incredibly naive about the innocence of Big Gay, Inc., and how it never hurt anyone. I would direct your attention to one Brendan Eich, who lost his job at Mozilla recently because he had the temerity to believe he lived in a free country. The names of people who lost their jobs is a long one. And let’s be honest, if someone loses a well-paying job he’s probably going to lose his house. So yes, people have been displaced for questioning the regnant Gay Catechism.

      Your understanding of history is also bereft in other ways. The Brownshirts who formed the core of the early Nazi Party were overwhelmingly homosexual and a quick perusal of history would show that they “displaced” more than a few persons on their rise to power. (Not that it did them any good in the end but that’s another story.)

      As for the homophilia of the ancient Greeks, you’re quite correct. You may have heard about one bisexual Greek king named Alexander III of Macedon. If you were not aware, he displaced thousands of people and killed thousands of others in his jaunt through Asia.

    • Will Harrington says

      It seems to me that what many Americans miss is the practical result of the homosexual agenda. For a couple of centuries we accepted that, in a land where the government was supposed to keep its hands off religion, the government still had a role to play in what was widely accepted as a sacrament. The government got to tax marriage. This was accepted probably because it had been common since the middle ages for the lord to take a tax when his serfs married, and because the federal government was not involved. The Gay marriage movement has managed to take this from the realm of questionable government involvement to one of equal rights. It is a ridiculous argument. The government does not tax and license rights. If marriage is taxed and licensed, then obviously what is licensed can’t be a right. From a logical point of view, the governments only role in marriage is to register that a marriage has occurred and collect a fee for doing so.
      Of course, this would mean that the government does not get to define marriage. Marriage would automatically become a more nebulous thing, but that’s where we are anyway, accept with one important exception. Because marriage is being defined as a right, the government will get to decide whether the right of a church to refuse to marry homosexuals or polygamists or whatever trumps the rights of a gay couple to be married in that church. Voila, the government has a brand new club that they can swing against whoever the chose. I often wonder what many gay people will think when they realize that, not only did they give the government a club against uppity religious groups, but also one that could be swung against another of governments historically favorite scapegoats, homosexuals. Not only that, but they willingly stood up, self identified, and put down their names and addresses on lists conveniently kept by government agencies. It would have been better all around if the definition of marriage was left to society as a whole where we could argue in the marketplace of ideas, where we Orthodox could practice and teach as we always have and the Episcopagans could hold whatever ceremonies they want and call it marriage rather than giving government yet more power to persecute whichever group is more convenient to them at the time.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Mr Harrington, this is an interesting tangent you’ve elucidated, one that hasn’t occurred to me. It’s interesting, but the Left’s favorite tyrant (Fidel Castro) quarantined thousands of Cuban homosexuals during the 1980s when AIDS first broke out. We’re talking concentration camps here. Although this would horrify the civil liberties crowd if done in America, it actually saved Cuba from the scourge of AIDS.

        Now, a couple of things here: 1) How come nobody on the Left took him to task? 2) did the fact that it worked legitimize his actions? 3) will this action be used again against another unpopular group?

        That all being said, the fact that homosexuals are lining up by the tens of thousands to register their sexual proclivities certainly can make us believe that when their usefulness to the Regime is over, they may be the next target for government action. In retrospect, the NRA position of “no registration of guns” makes eminent sense. But then again those of us in the gun rights movement are historically knowledgeable, Constitutionally aware and clear thinkers. We know the limits of human goodness and as the Psalmist warns us “put not your trust in princes or the sons of men.” Our Founding Fathers knew Scripture (and human nature) inside and out.

        Plus, we’re just plain cussed.

      • Will Harrington says:

        It would have been better all around if the definition of marriage was left to society as a whole where we could argue in the marketplace of ideas, where we Orthodox could practice and teach as we always have and the Episcopagans could hold whatever ceremonies they want and call it marriage rather than giving government yet more power to persecute whichever group is more convenient to them at the time.

        Why does the Orthodox church speak with authority on the matter of marriage? Why does the Orthodox church tolerate TWO divorces and bless THREE marriages per person?

    • Ladder of Divine Ascent says

      “To look at is practically, how many of our Orthodox brothers ands sisters have been killed or driven from their homes by the gays? NONE. How many have been massacred, tortured or driven into exile by their supposed Orthodox brethren? Hundreds of thousands: in Georgia, Moldova and now in occupied Ukraine.

      “Who is worse?”

      You are. Obama is a possible sodomite, his wife could even be a tranny (RIP: Joan Rivers), both are far more likely than any Democratic policies ever working to the common good (zero chance of that). Obama is at fault for the persecution that erupted in Egypt (by backing the Muslim Brotherhood), the backing of “rebel groups” in Syria which became genocide there and in Iraq, turning Libya and Ukraine into failed states, etc. As far as the Ukraine being “occupied,” yeah it is “occupied” by a Nazi junta, all of it but Crimea and the parts of Novorussia that are resisting the Nazi junta.

      Parliamentarian Nestor Shufrich assaulted by Ukie “Right Sector” Nazis in broad daylight, police watch, zero consequences:

      The “West’s” version of the Ukie Nazi state is a joke:

      Uniate priest in action:

      On side you’ve got open appeals for suppression/genocide of Russians/Orthodox, and more than that, it being put into practice by Nazi gangs and the Ukie junta military. On the other hand, you’ve got your empty accusations of Orthodox somehow waging war on Orthodox in the Ukraine. Strange, your version is the exact opposite of reality.

      “Go tell that long tongued liar, you can run on for a long time, run for a long time, but sooner or later, God’s gonna cut you down”:

    • Francis,

      The strategy of trying to decide which side is the worse sinner throughout history and proclaiming that their theology must the be wrong one is wrong-headed. That, of course, does not excuse sin. But, we are all sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness, heterosexual and homosexual. The criteria for authentic personhood and the living of it out, is located in another approach. It is located in The Authentic Person – Christ Jesus.

      • Lazarus, I think you have made the most sense of all on this topic! We are all sinners and should not judge others’, who they love, and whom they would like to spend their lives with in a loving relationship. I think there are many more serious issues to champion, e.g. homelessness, starvation, poverty, than to think of a gay couple of unreal or not capable of contributing to society.

    • Michalopulos:

      I’ve resigned myself to the fact that it’s basically over as far as Western Civilization is concerned. At this point I see myself as a bystander, watching the canoes go over Niagara Falls one by one, hoping I don’t fall into the river accidentally. Like the little boy who saw that the Emperor had no clothes, I like to point out that not only is he naked but he’s performing an unnatural act. In other words, I’m content to chronicle the decline and fall our once-great civilization.

      Francis, all the posturing and pontificating about the decline of Western civilization, etc., that goes on at Monomakhos is just a diversion. It is degenerate judgmental spirituality masquerading as righteous indignation, or, as in this post, bemused observation. Good for you for once again pointing out the self-satisfied hypocrisy.

  8. Thomas Barker says

    Now that the western world has decisively rejected all that is decent, society’s depravity is coming into clear focus. Buggery everywhere and everywhere buggery! Fall asleep in the wrong place and you’ll wake up with more things sticking out of you than a porcupine.

    • Now that the western world has decisively rejected all that is decent, society’s depravity is coming into clear focus. Buggery everywhere and everywhere buggery! Fall asleep in the wrong place and you’ll wake up with more things sticking out of you than a porcupine.

      Father Vingradov begs to differ.

  9. Every morning I scan the news, waiting for a story about some man demanding his Constitutional right to marry his beloved 2X4 with the anatomically correct knothole.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Next will come polyamory, then bestiality. Give it time Sasha.

      • George, do you think they’re going to skip over pedophilia?

        • George, do you think they’re going to skip over pedophilia?

          Who are “they”? Anyone remember +Storheim, +Paisios, +Vikentios, Father Isidore, et al. ? The Orthodox clergy certainly aren’t skipping that step!

      • Isa Almisry says

        “Next will come polyamory”
        Will come? It’s here.

        Btw, I prefer its real name:sleeping around.

        • “Next will come polyamory”
          Will come? It’s here.

          Btw, I prefer its real name:sleeping around.

          And, of course, not a single Orthodox Christian has ever slept around.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I think you’re missing the point. I guess that’s par for the course for most liberals I’ve learned long ago. Anyway, the point is those of us who have slept around aren’t clamoring for ecclesiastical sanction for our sins. At least for polygamy there’s ample Scriptural precedent.

            • The point is hypocrisy.

              • No, hypocrisy is doing the same thing you are criticizing. The relevant hypocrisy would be if someone who opposes having same-sex marriage approved by society and blessed by the Church turned around and demanded that society approve of his cheating or sleeping around — and not only expected the Church to remove fornication and adultery from the list of sins worthy of repentance, but even demanded that the Church bless his one-night stands and extramarital affairs.

                It is not hypocrisy to call something a sin just because you yourself are sinful.

          • Many Orthodox have slept around. But there is a difference between committing a sin and proclaiming it to be a virtue.

          • Isa Almisry says

            And, of course, not a single Orthodox Christian has ever slept around.

            Not a single one who wanted to call it a Holy Mystery, or even a sacrament, no.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        I had to GOOGLE polyamory! That’s how bad things are. I have to look things up that are just around the corner ready to pounce. As a former debutant, I must have a strand of pearls somewhere. Maybe if I wore them, it would ward off all this craziness. Don’t laugh! It worked for Donna Reid.

  10. I have to say Frost wins the day pointing out the obvious that gays are rarely as evil as straights. Of course, George found a historical deviation, but the point is made , rattling the glass in the echo room.

    I take a Rhett Scott attitude.

    It comes down to money. If libertarians weren’t disingenuous, they’d expect singles to have the same rights as marrieds and the whole matter would be mute. They can’t get past their status quo roots.


    • George Michalopulos says

      It’s more than a few “historical deviations”. The Mamelukes were a slave army made up exclusively of homosexuals and they did considerable damage to the populations they devastated. Likewise Nero and Caligula –perverts if there ever were ones. And this point can’t be stated often enough: the Brownshirts made Hitler’s rise to power possible. That he stabbed them in the back is an irony to be sure.

      The fact of the matter is that it is not body counts alone that define evil and exonerate a deviant group. It is the sin itself.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        All along I had thought that the Sacred Band of Thebes reflected the Greek ideal of love. Is that the reason why George is so gay-averse? So much ado for at most five percent of the population!

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          How much of the population were Bolsheviks in Russia back in 1917? Not much and look at what they did.


          • George Michalopulos says

            Yup. That and they convinced all the “citizens” to “temporarily” turn in their guns.

        • Is there truly any parallel in antiquity — or in any other human society in history — that normalized same-sex marriage between peers (and where those individuals engaged exclusively in same-sex relationships) and put it on an equal legal and social footing as heterosexual marriage?

          From what I can tell, what is being embarked on in Western countries today is a truly novel experiment in human history. (Unless the Talmudic/Midrashic statements are true that imply that one of the reasons for the Great Flood was that men were marrying other men — or even marrying beasts.)

          There is a great deal of human experience with polygamy throughout history, and even some examples of polyandry in a very few societies. There is a fair amount of historical experience with heterosexual “serial monogamy” in the form of divorces and remarriages (the 20-21st century West is not unique in that regard).

          But same-sex marriage of the kind that is currently being embarked upon on a large scale? I believe that this is a novel experiment in human history without precedent. Religion and morals aside, the potential consequences (intended or unintended) for a society are unpredictable. What always amazes me about these grand social experiments is that no-one seems capable of stepping outside of religious/moral (or anti-religious/amoral) paradigms when questioning whether it is wise to unquestioningly and rapidly push through such wholesale social transformations. I am not saying that dire societal consequences can be predicted. I am merely saying that those who are driving and allowing this societal/legal transformation are giving all the weight to what the gay community wants, and no weight to thinking about the fact that this has no precedent, and thinking about what that means.

          This, in a society that will stop all sorts of things dead in their tracks because of the unproven possibility that stopping them might possibly make a minute contribution to decreasing global warming.

          • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

            Well said, Edward.

            Never in 5,000 years of Western Civilization (and perhaps 7,000 years, if we go back to pre-literate Sumer and pre-pharaonic Egypt) had any culture sanctified, blessed, or otherwise legitimated homosexual unions as “marriage” before The Netherlands took that fateful step on April 1, 2001 (April Fools’ Day, appropriately enough). The sheer hubris behind such a rejection of unbroken, universal history, as if suddenly the sexually-enlightened ones know better than every generation in recorded history, is at once breathtaking and depressing. The exponential advance of the homosexualist juggernaut throughout Europe and the Western Hemisphere since 2001 is alarming in the extreme. This is an unprecedented, barbaric challenge to both civil society and Bible-based morality. Although it is a fight not of our choosing, we must answer the clarion call to battle on behalf of the present and future generations.

            I believe that our task as Orthodox Christians in this regard is to continue resolutely on the path of theosis , particularly through struggle against our passions, cultivation of virtues, regular Holy Confession of our own sins and shortcomings, and reception of the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; to love other sinners as God the Holy Trinity loves us sinners, while rejecting unequivocally the sin of homosexual behavior and its glorification by our increasingly debased culture; to take a firm, unyielding stance within our own religious communities and in the public square by witnessing prophetically to the Gospel truth of marriage between one man and one woman alone; to ignore or brush off the verbal brickbats that will invariably come our way; and to persevere in the face of discrimination, harassment, and even persecution as have the Christian confessors and martyrs of every generation.

      • You spend too much time on it George.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Well, if they stopped smearing our collective faces in it, I wouldn’t. Believe me, I’d rather spend more time deconstructing Darwinism.

          • Carl Kraeff says

            George–My post above about the Sacred Band was in jest and was ill advised, at least from a timing perspective. I read today the problems in Houston and I am aghast at the brazen hussy of a mayor that is acting like a Fascist capo. I am more than indignant and am considering agreeing with you that yes we do have a problem with our culture.

          • I’d enjoy that much more.

            The only thing that bothers me is the misuse of the word gay. Not only has it perverted a great word; it also implies a festive nature to homosexual relations; which results in the perversion of our thoughts about homosexual behavior…as if it weren’t already inherently enough.

            As for homosexuality itself. I don’t give a ….

      • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

        Much ado about nothing? Check this out:

        City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

        • Much ado about nothing? Check this out:

          City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

          Yes, the point is obvious. The Orthodox church is more accustomed to responding to subpoenas when the case involves sex crimes by the clergy against minors.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          Aw, I just posted this also. You totally stole my thunder. That’s ok because the story is utterly terrifying and Christians need to know about it.


        • That ridiculous, totalitarian mayor of Houston will not rest until all Christian Texan men are attending Joel Osteen’s Houston mega-“church” and are wearing layers of makeup just like he does.

          Will Joel Osteen’s “sermons” be subpoenaed? No, of course not, because he does not preach Christ crucified or anything even remotely resembling Christianity.

          But his form of inspirational speaking will pass as a type of “Christian” service acceptable to the future (current?) totalitarian, secular élites. True Christianity and its inherent truths and freedoms are dangerous to their power, and thus it is persecuted.

        • Big Brother is watching you . . . . .

  11. 1. A fornicating heterosexual couples show up at an Orthodox church asking the priest to be married. The priest obliges; he may even slap some chrism on the non-Orthodox spouse beforehand. There may be some discussion of the couple “joining” the parish, but everyone knows it is a charade. After the crowning, the couple shows up for a divine liturgy or two, then disappears. No one is surprised.

    2. Orthodox (in name only) parents bring their children to an Orthodox priest to be baptized. Baptism occurs, then family disappears. No one is surprised.

    3. Orthodox marries Jew or Muslim; marriage is performed by judge or a minister in a Protestant denomination in a ceremony without reference to Jesus Christ. Orthodox spouse shows up at Orthodox church and Orthodox priest with full knowledge of non-Christian marriage communes him or her. Standard practice at some parishes.

    Orthodox Christians trivialize the holy mysteries of the one holy catholic and apostolic church on a regular basis. At least the blokes in NZ know that they’re having a lark.

    • Isa Almisry says

      “At least the blokes in NZ know that they’re having a lark.”
      Yes, they are at least one up from the same sex “couples” thinking they are getting married.

    • I assume/hope that your point is that some priests need to guard the mysteries with more reverence and strictness — and that parishioners and bishops need to back up those priests when they get grief for being strict. If so, I agree with you.

      Maybe it has been an atypical experience, but I don’t remember things like that going on in the ROCOR, conservative OCA, Serbian, or even GOA parishes I have been a member of.

      Your examples are pretty tame compared to some stories I have heard, though, such as the occasional Antiochian priest allegedly communing unbaptized Muslim family members of their parishioners — since they are Lebanese, it was apparently “close enough,” although non-Lebanese Baptists or Anglicans need not apply for similar privileges.

      I watched several OCA priests I have had turn people away at the chalice because they didn’t know if they were Orthodox or if they hadn’t been to confession. Usually, they would talk to them immediately after Liturgy to ascertain as best they could whether they were Orthodox, hear their confession, and commune them then. It would have been easier to just commune them at the usual time and ask no questions, but they didn’t.

      In my experience, most priests really wrestle with the tough situations they are faced with (many of which leave them with no good options), and try to do the right thing.

  12. Michael Kinsey says

    There is a laughter that leads to heaviness. Subtle, in it’s appeal, but is actually a rejoicing in iniquity. A genuine monk, with monastic sobriety would not in indulge himself in the experience of mirth this situation. The only pleasant thing mentioned in this joke, is that they were not really gay.

  13. Francis Frost says

    Dear To Yia Yia George:

    You accuse me of being a Johhny One Note for repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of your logic and the fatuous nature of you supposed morality.

    In fact ,file mou, you are the one who constantly yodels the same evil, degenerate West versus the golden moral East trope, a trope that your groupies pass around like a druggie’s bong. Your constant disparagement of your neighbor for the sake of your own aggrandizement is once again, simply tiresome. Get over yourself.

    Your disparagement of the memory of our Orthodox Holy Martyrs as “Georgian Victimhood” demonstrates a mentality and a spirituality at complete odds with the Gospel and the authentic Orthodox Faith. Your refusal to see Christ in suffering Orthodox Christians demonstrates a callous heart, a defective conscience and a demonic spirituality.

    May God help you!

    You are certainly welcome to your fantasy of a Kitezh-like, morally superior ‘Holy Russia’; but facts are indelible things.

    The divorce rate in Holy Russia is nearly double that of the ‘degenerate’ West. The abortion rate in Holy Russia is 6 times that of the Evil West. The Moscow Patriarchate has been been exposed by its own wunderkind theologian, Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev, as a “Gay Mafia”. There are now published lurid accusations of sexual abuse of seminarians by senior clergy at the Kazan Theological Seminary. Kuraev claims that at least one third of Russia’s bishops are sexually active homosexuals. The scandalous behavior of Patriarch Kirill is well documented. Russia’s other wunderkind theologian, Hilarion Alfeyev, is now publicly accused of heresy for espousing the Origenist doctrine of “apokatastasis ton panton”. For more on that, see the recent series of articles titled “St. Issac the Syrian, Slandered Saint” on the Mystagogy web-site. Granted ‘apokatastasis’ is certainly an appealing doctrine especially for rogues, murderers and thieves. Why repent if God will forgive all anyway?

    On one subject you may well be right. There may well be an open economic war between Russia, the West and the Saudis. Noticed the price of oil? It’s no accident. For more on that, read Thomas Friedman’s article in yesterday’s New York times. The last such war bankrupted the Soviets.

    For more on Russia, from an actual Russian read Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s op-ed that follows:

    Glory to the ‘Russian World’

    Imagine the unimaginable: Suppose an American supreme court chief justice asserts in an interview that “slavery in the United States, despite its extremes, was a principal bond that maintained the deep unity of the nation.” Now replace “slavery in the United States” with “serfdom in Russia,” and you have the exact quote from an article by the chairman of Russia’s Constitutional Court, Valery D. Zorkin, published on Sept. 30.

    In legal terms, serfdom, an institution that bound peasants to the land, is considered to be a less-cruel form of bondage than slavery. In practice, however, Russian serfs were routinely bought and sold and regularly physically abused. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 paved the way for the Great Reforms aimed at modernizing the Russian empire and setting free 23 million people, or more than a third of Russia’s population.

    Mr. Zorkin wrote his comments while discussing a newly proposed law that would make failure to register with the local police authorities at a place of one’s residence a criminal offense. He further suggested that Russia during the 1990s under the leadership of President Boris N. Yeltsin was similar to the period of the Great Reforms in the 1860s. Then as now the reforms produced political chaos and social disorder, requiring counterreforms and repression to restore stability.

    But if Mr. Zorkin sounds like an unreconstructed 19th-century Russian landlord, he is not alone. On April 17, President Vladimir V. Putin, in his televised question-and-answer session with the public, emphasized the inner strength of the Russians, particularly their readiness for self-sacrifice, which he said distinguished his country from the West. He hastened to add that these qualities would soon come in handy. Mr. Putin further suggested that country’s great strength was its peoples’ “unique and very powerful genetic code,” and that Russians possessed greater souls and superior moral values than self-indulgent Westerners. His glorification of the Russian soul and spiritual values repeated a popular theme among Russian nationalists throughout the 19th century.

    Enter Mr. Putin’s inner circle. Dmitri O. Rogozin, a deputy prime minister in charge of the military industry, is known for his hawkishness and his numerous pronouncements of Russia’s readiness to use nuclear weapons. In September, he reiterated his statement that, if attacked, Russia would respond with nuclear arms. In Mr. Rogozin’s words, they represent a perfect “weapon of retribution” intended to stop Western aggression against Russia. There have been several reports that Russian officials informally threatened their Ukrainian counterparts with nuclear weapons.

    Russia also has its own, nonfictional, Dr. Strangelove. Dmitry Kiselev, the head of the news network Russia Today, is widely considered to reflect Kremlin views. In one of his programs early in the Ukrainian crisis, he told his audience that Russia was “the only country in the world capable of turning the United States into radioactive dust.” He illustrated his case with charts showing the trajectories of Russian missiles, adding that even if the United States was able to intercept these, the missiles from nuclear submarines would do the job.

    If this sounds alarming, consider the boundless anti-Americanism of Mr. Putin’s close adviser, Sergei Glazyev. Just last month, Mr. Glazyev recapped a favorite theme: The United States has started a series of regional wars in preparation for World War III. Why? Because America is in decline and needs war in order to prevail in its competition with China, weaken the European Union and undermine Russia. Only then will it be able to control Eurasia.

    The troubles in Ukraine, Mr. Glazyev argued, were a part of Washington’s strategy. In the past, Mr. Glazyev frequently called for bombing and a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which he invariably referred to as the American-installed “fascist, Nazi junta.”
    These and other pronouncements by the Russian president and his close advisers are increasingly stated in vague and mystical language, with references to the “Russian world.” The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, explained during his regular TV program on Sept. 8 that the “Russian world” is a distinct civilization and that its unique spiritual and cultural values must be preserved. According to the patriarch, it includes Ukraine, Belarus and any non-Slavic peoples who share these values. He derided the concept of a melting pot, suggesting that it was a perfect example of the failure of contemporary Western civilization.

    Such pronouncements may appear bizarre. Yet they cannot simply be dismissed as the ideas of the political fringe because they belong to the Kremlin’s inner circle. In a desperate attempt to preserve their power, Russia’s ruling class has concocted an ideological brew that borrows from every corner of the repressive and outdated world of Slavic nationalism, isolationism and anti-Westernism.

    The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was right when several months ago she described Mr. Putin as inhabiting his own mental universe. Worse, the worldview of Mr. Putin’s Russia leaves little room for compromise.
    Michael Khodarkovsky, who grew up in the Soviet Union and is a professor of history at Loyola University in Chicago, is at work on a history of the Russian empire.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Looks like I’ve drawn some blood, Brother Francis. The Slavs behind the Iron Curtain were subjected to massive totalitarian indoctrination and when that didn’t work, active persecution and murder. Again, I ask: what’s our excuse? Are we not fat and happy? Who held a gun to our heads and told us to hate God and ridicule His precepts?