1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Psychiatry and Orthodoxy: Nope Homosexuality is not normal

Discussion in 'The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox' started by Philothei, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Philothei

    Philothei Love never fails

    Messages:
    44,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
  2. isshinwhat

    isshinwhat Pro Deo et Patria

    Messages:
    8,407
    Likes Received:
    169
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Philothei likes this.
  3. ProScribe

    ProScribe New Member

    Messages:
    6,848
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Yes, man to man friendship does not automatically advocate homosexuality.
     
  4. Philothei

    Philothei Love never fails

    Messages:
    44,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I agree but this is not what the interview was about ;) :liturgy:
     
  5. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member

    Messages:
    14,436
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    awesome for her to not take off her cross
     
  6. AureateDawn

    AureateDawn Heal yourself. :)

    Messages:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    This is silly. People and animals are completely different beings. It's so ridiculous that I can't even comment further. :p

    This is because meekly standing back with a quiet voice leads to more oppression and discrimination.

    This is simply fallacy. I know lots of homosexuals that are very healthy, and would be considered healthy, surely, by this doctor if she didn't know they were gay.

    Because it became necessary. When millions upon millions of children need SOMEONE to love them, a redefinition of family is required. Sure, you can say that a heterosexual married couple would be best. That's fine. I may be inclined to agree with you. But one person, or two same sex people, is much better than no one to love them and care for them. Living an entire life and growing up without one or more parents is a lot more damaging than say, having gay parents, or a single parent who never wants married but wants a child.


    Aside from those few bits, I really enjoyed the reading, and it made me think. :) Thanks for posting it! <3

    Edit: Just wanted to say that although I disagree with her (obviously :p), I would also like to commend her for still carrying the cross and holding firm to her Faith.
     
  7. Gregorios

    Gregorios Blessed is our God

    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    You really mean to tell me you're being oppressed because people oppose gay marriage? Really? That is oppression? No, no I don't think so, when you're forced to have seperate facilities, sit in the back of the bus, rounded up and put in camps, then you come talk to me about oppression. No sir, homosexuals are not being oppressed.
     
    Gwendolyn likes this.
  8. AureateDawn

    AureateDawn Heal yourself. :)

    Messages:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    40
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    Oppression comes in varying degrees. Homosexual oppression is obviously milder than that of African Americans only a few decades ago. Though it's not really "marriage" that is the oppression (because, first, the government has no business getting their grubby little hands involved in a sacrament). It boils down to rights and money. There are over 1,000 tax benefits that heterosexual married couples receive that homosexual ones cannot... because we can't get married.

    Lots of things make it a civil rights issue. We cannot make medical decisions for our partners in emergencies. Sometimes even visitation is forbidden. If one partner of a gay couple gets arrested, the other can be forced to testify against them. Heterosexual couples are not forced to do so. Family of a deceased partner of a homosexual couple can even override carefully written wills.

    Those are just a few reasons. Oppression is oppression, sometimes just in different ways, or ways with varying degrees of severity.
     
  9. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Well, oppression of homosexuals in the USA military ends on Sept. 20th anyways. Whether or not one agrees with it.
     
  10. Gregorios

    Gregorios Blessed is our God

    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I have long been in favor of civil unions for just the reasons you mentioned, I would like it if homosexuals could be in relationships with each other if they would remain celibate. There are more ways to show and express love other than sexual and I don't think homosexuals should be forced to be alone, but I think they may want to consider that they may have a monastic calling..but I digress. I've said all that to say this, marriage is not possible within the Church as you well know, nor should it be, but I also don't think you should have to be alone. If you could be in a non-sexual relationship, I could support that. Sorry to derail to the topic.
     
  11. Blonde

    Blonde Regular Member

    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    There are legal ways for any type of non married people to have "power" over the partners affairs.....Trusts, Power of Attorney, etc......
     
  12. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    So why are people so phobic about the government using the word "marriage" for homosexuals? It doesn't strike me as concerning, it isn't a sacramental marriage in the Church. They could call it "The Grand Rite of Oooglesmumph" as far as I am concerned, just as long as everyone gets to rights to the same thing under the law, which includes the name.
     
  13. Thekla

    Thekla Guest

    I do think the article discusses issues aside from the public social issues (marriage, etc.).

    The 'public' issues are discussed as visible/experienced illustrations of the core thesis, but are not central to the thesis.
     
  14. Thekla

    Thekla Guest

    The term marriage (and its equivalents) is a theological term; it "tells us about" God in relation to a particular relationship.
     
    Gwendolyn likes this.
  15. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    But that isn't really relevant to a civil marriage, which is basically just a legal contract. Homosexuals just want the same label attached to theirs, and I don't see any reason they shouldn't have it.
     
  16. Thekla

    Thekla Guest

    The betrothal is the legal contract. Marriage is, and has been for at least 2,000 years, a theological term.

    Marriage, a theological concept, may be recognized by civil authorities, but is not a civil contract or term at its core.
     
    Gwendolyn and Dorothea like this.
  17. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but fact is that civil marriage has nothing to do with religion at this point. I personally think Christianity has better things to worry about than whether an imaginary trademark on the word "marriage" is being violated.
     
  18. Thekla

    Thekla Guest

    Its not an issue of "trademark", but meaning.

    Words mean something; they express a conceptual cluster rendered in abbreviated form as sound.

    (Sound "mirroring", relationships, counterpoints etc., are literary and rhetorical devices, is used to link concepts to concept. We learn through more than our intellect :) )

    Sometimes, words are changed, and terms replaced, to alter our view of the concept under discussion - the introduction of the term "collateral damage" is a somewhat recent example.

    Whether deliberate or not, extending a term alters a term.

    I'm not sure why something like "civil union" would be so problematic.
    And frankly, I don't understand why the term "marriage" is used for any "civil union" ...
     
  19. Incariol

    Incariol Newbie

    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Because whatever your theological reasoning, courts and voters tend to agree that homosexuals have the right to have their unions called marriages.
     
  20. rusmeister

    rusmeister Contributor

    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    52
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    The work I found most helpful in understanding what marriage is was written almost a hundred years ago, when the social issue was whether to allow easy divorce. G. K. Chesterton took that issue on and laid out a clear picture of what the family always has been and must be - and showed, from a secular standpoint (he was a journalist writing for millions of unbelievers), why the traditional family must not be "redefined".

    It makes hash of all the tired arguments Justin brings up about it being a social issue and so on. It's less than 40 pages in MS Word, if you want to know how to respond to the arguments of the "gay lobby" on their own grounds. Just take the hour or so to read it (esp. ch. 5!). It becomes clear why it cannot be a social issue without one mention of God or morality. (Edit: I mean that it cannot be a "rights" issue)

    The Superstition of Divorce, by G. K. Chesterton (circa 1920)
    http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/divorce.txt

    And PE's links below are definitely better (unless you can't read pdf)...

    P. S. Be patient with the windows analogy - he's going somewhere with it!
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2011
    Kristos likes this.