Homosexuality is Slavery!

[HaloHope]

Oh, and, again, I struggle with homosexual passions and SSA as well. For four years. I want nothing more than to date and fall in love and have a family. But it's not what God wants me to do. I have to struggle against what I want, and what God wants.

Thats fine, and if your happy I'm happy for you

However, I firmly believe that God brought myself and my partner together, I don't struggle whatsoever with who I am and I love both God and the family he has given to me.

 

[Phinehas2]

You see the thing is, neither homosexuality nor anything, theft, malice, greed etc is slavery if one doesnt beileve it is a sin. If however these are sins acording to God's word then it doesnt really matter what we think we are still going to be wrong in the end. Its all about choice either we believe or we dont.
Now if we believe Jesus Christ's bibilcal testimony, the Pharisees claimed the were not slaves and Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."
"and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
" -Mark 10;44
"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. - 1 Corinthians 7:22

Basically we are either slaves to Jesus Christ or slaves to something else.

"They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. - 2 Peter 2:19



I would say that Jesus teaches we love Him and are His disciples when we obey Him - John 14-16.
"

 

[catlover]

Bologna. Life is all about choices. People wake up every morning and every moment of the day choose what they will do or not do.

The RC sex abuse scandal didn't occur because they were sex starved or had a sex taboo or something. It was all about people choosing to give in to sin. They didn't control their thoughts and became willing participants in the sin.

People fornicate and commit adultery for similar reasons. They didn't control their thoughts and became willing participants in sin. In the case of adultery, having a sex taboo definitely has nothing to do with it.

The same follows for every conceivable sin out there, as sin is anything that 'misses the mark', which for the Christian, should be a life in Christ. Anything that keeps people from that is disordered and a spiritual illness.

Fornication is not pedophelia. In my opinion when you turn something natural-a sexual urge or a sexual act into a taboo-people will naturally have problems.

Though I will add pedophelia isn't really about sex it's about power.

 

[catlover]

Ok........now that was just an ignorant statement about priests! And neither was I accusing homosexuals of anything!

It's ignorant to make statements about Protestants too.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear catlover,
Whatever the motivation behind a sexual act it is still a sexual act, and paedophilia is that.
Jesus NT teaching in Matt 19 for example shows us that pornos breaks the man woman marriage union. Pornos is fornication outside marriage. Any fornication outside is sin, this isnt new, this is what the church has always been teaching.

 

[nestoj]

Sexual orientation is not different from skin color. So it is a perfect comparison. You just want to pretend what you are advocating is somehow morally better than those who preach discrimination based on skin color or religion or handicapped status or gender.

Is the skin color a passion of some kind? Does skin color attributes to any passion? Again i concur what Justin said: terrible comparison, and I add: a false one.
1.No where in the Bible was skin color mentioned, then again same sex attraction is mentioned in a negative context same as sins that are applicable to the heterosexuals only and ones that are universal.
2.Every lust is a sin, be it homosexual or heterosexual. It is advised in the Bible, by the St. Paul, to remain celibate, and if we can't do that, than to marry. This marriage must not contradict other parts of the Bible. It is said "fill the Earth" and that is why the sex is good. Without that what do we have in sex? Passion, lust.... Passion is the sin if we give ourselves to it. What about Love, someone might ask. I ask then: can't we love without sex, is lust a must for a love?

Those advocating racism happily use the bible to condemn the sin of blacks acting as social equals to whites. Having dark skin is not sinful, (according to racists) just acting as the social equal to whites is
They preach that blacks should confine themselves to the social roles God dictated. The end result is that what you are posting is indistinguishable form the rants of racists.

Continuation of false dilemma. No one is placing homosexuals in lower category. Skin is an attribute of human. Without it one can't live.

Homosexuality is a description of an physical attraction towards same sex. It is a description of certain passion. Passions are not integral part of a human. It is by itself not bad. Giving to it is bad. Decision to fight the passion is praise worthy, and that goes for anybody. Seams like you find the decision to "pick up the cross" bad. Why?

You obviously think racism is wrong, or at the very least you are offended by the comparison…why?
Please explain why it is morally wrong for racists to use the bible to prop up their prejudices but when you use the bible to prop up your prejudices it somehow becomes morally justified.

Because it is, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

Let me guess… interpreting scripture “wrong” is defined as anyone who dares to disagree with your personal interpretation because you, and you alone, are always correct and could not possibly be wrong.

"You can safely conclude you have created God in your own image when it turns out that He hates all the same people you do" - Anne Lamott

God hates no man. We mustn't hate no one. I certainly hate no one. I'm sure same goes for Justin.

the same claim was made about interracial marriage a generation ago. again please explain why your position is morally superior to those advocating racism

Where is interracial marriage mentioned in negative context? In the Bible? No. In the writings of the ECF? No. What are we talking about here?

denial of love

False.

denial of family

Who is denying the family to anyone?

of freedom

False. No one is denying the freedom to choose, and live as one decides, to anyone. It's their decision. That doesn't change the fact that the sin is wrong. On the other hand, decision to fight the sin is good.

denial of marriage, denial of children

As far as I know homosexual marriage as a social category is allowed in many countries and will be worldwide. So I see no problem there.
Can a homosexual couple procreate and have children? If they can, than OK, no one is denying them the right to have children, how could anyone. If you make a comparison with heterosexual couples that can't have children, I remind you that their inability is due to illness of one or both members of the couple. You will place homosexuality in category with the disease.

and the self hatred is obvious

I would say that here the "deny yourself, pick up the cross, and follow Me" is obvious, as well as love for God.

God helps

 

[IamRedeemed]

Homosexuality is slavery. Period. Those who are homosexual and act upon it are chaining themselves up to the Devil and to the world.

People who are gay...

Well, first, let me clarify. The verb "to be" is inappropriate. "I am gay" is a wrong statement; it does not define who I am (or you, or them, whatever). Saying "I/You struggle with same-sex attraction and passions" is more appropriate.

Anywho. Being gay in and of itself is not wrong. The bible makes it pretty clear that it's wrong... If anyone really needs me to point out that common Scriptures in "debating" homosexuality, I suppose I will.

Acting upon these same-sex passions, however, is very sinful. Same with opposite-sex passions--they must abstain from lust and other such. However, "homosexuals" struggle even moreso, unable to marry or date or any of that. Acting upon one's "gayness" is slavery in its highest form. Acting upon it means you are giving in, submitting to the Devil, and allowing him to place shackles on you and tie you down. This is slavery, with same-sex passions or with any other sin. It's pure slavery.

Jesus will set you free! Live a celibate life in secular society or in a monastery! Seek God! The cross we "homosexuals" bear is surely heavy, but God will give us nothing we cannot bear!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit, Amen.

Lord, have mercy.

Yes, it does!


I've never mentioned ex-gay therapy. That largely fails and can often have terribly negative spiritual and psychology effects. Seeking a life of celibacy is a very courageous and blessed thing to do, and it has nothing to do with religious oppression. It has everything to do with loving God and trying one's best to follow Him, despite all of our many weaknesses and our many sins. And through following our Lord Jesus Christ comes joy!



God condemns it, that is why. But of course, sure you can have a fulfilling life in a certain sense... many secular people often can have a successful and "fulfilling" life... but it isn't truly a completely fulfilling life without God (or with God, but not following what He knows is best for us.... it's ok, I don't follow him fully either, I fail every day and try my best to get up again by His great mercy).

May God bless you.

 

[IamRedeemed]

It is all sexual immorality though if the sex of any kind is other
than between a married man and woman who are married to
each other, according to God.

All sexual immorality is fornication. The other words only break it down
to the exact act. aka beastiality, pedophilia, sodomy, adultery etc.

And fornication is sin committed against one's own body.

1 Corinthians 6:18

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body; but he that commits
fornication sins against his own body.

Fornication is not pedophelia. In my opinion when you turn something natural-a sexual urge or a sexual act into a taboo-people will naturally have problems.

Though I will add pedophelia isn't really about sex it's about power.

 

[IamRedeemed]

All things holy and pleasing to the Lord feel unnatural to the natural mind of a man
and sin of all kinds feels natural. But the spirit of a man that is born again, to sin
against God becomes unnatural and living a life that is pleasing unto the
Lord becomes natural.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:
behold old things are passed away and all things become new.

That is how one can know whether or not they have really changed masters.
By who has the reigns and which direction we are being led.

Living a celibate lifestyle is disordered and unnatural.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear catlover,
Whatever the motivation behind a sexual act it is still a sexual act, and paedophilia is that.

So, whatever the motivation behind the act? You showing your love for your wife is exactly the same thing as raping a child? And yes, that is just exactly what you are saying about gays.

Jesus NT teaching in Matt 19 for example shows us that pornos breaks the man woman marriage union. Pornos is fornication outside marriage. Any fornication outside is sin, this isnt new, this is what the church has always been teaching.

Most of the Christian gays on this forum would not disagree with most of that statement (the exception being the man-woman specification) about fornication. However, they, and often their churches, consider their commitments to one another to be marriages, even if the government is reluctant to aknowledge that fact. That is why they do not believe they are sinning their loving is within a covenental marriage.

If they have joined in the covenental marriage, they are married. Religious marriage and civil marriage allow their communities (religious and civil) to aknowledge (and celebrate) the marriage, but do create the marriage bond.

 

[catlover]

Dear catlover,
Whatever the motivation behind a sexual act it is still a sexual act, and paedophilia is that.
Jesus NT teaching in Matt 19 for example shows us that pornos breaks the man woman marriage union. Pornos is fornication outside marriage. Any fornication outside is sin, this isnt new, this is what the church has always been teaching.

Pedophelia is not a sexual orientation---

Somethings which have always been a church teaching:slavery.

That has changed so the justification that that has been the way things are is not valid.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Pedophelia is not a sexual orientation---

Somethings which have always been a church teaching:slavery.

That has changed so the justification that that has been the way things are is not valid.

Pedophilia is also a heterosexual problem. 85% of all child molesters are the child’s father, step father or in a sexual relationship with the child’s mother. Grandfathers make u the next largest group of child molesters. homosexuals account for less than 0.04% of child molestations.

Given these facts, it shows just how desperate the religious right is in finding any justification for prejudice

 

[Nichole]

It's ignorant to make statements about Protestants too.

When did I made a statement about Protestants that was "ignorant"? I was a Protestant once myself and did not understand anything about monks, nuns, priests, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So when I said what Protestants don't understand...........that was a mere "word" for calling all other Christians that are not Orthodox or Catholic. How did you want me to term "Protestants" when I was talking about Protestants?

 

[MariaRegina]

Read the Desert Fathers.

A monk was told to leave the monastery because he was gay.

One of the desert fathers learned of this and said that he would leave with the monk if they dismissed him because we all are sinners.

Living a monastic life is a life of denial, but it is a joyful sorrow lived in repentance for past sins.

True monastics are some of the most joyful and free people in the world.

Please read: The Mountain of Silence by Kyriacos Markides, and available at www.amazon.com

 

[catlover]

When did I made a statement about Protestants that was "ignorant"? I was a Protestant once myself and did not understand anything about monks, nuns, priests, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So when I said what Protestants don't understand...........that was a mere "word" for calling all other Christians that are not Orthodox or Catholic. How did you want me to term "Protestants" when I was talking about Protestants?

I understand completely about all the celibacy issue, my relatives are Roman Catholic, I was baptized in The RC, in fact one of Great Uncles went to seminary...

 

[KCKID]

Oh, and, again, I struggle with homosexual passions and SSA as well. For four years. I want nothing more than to date and fall in love and have a family. But it's not what God wants me to do. I have to struggle against what I want, and what God wants.

Um ...here is what I don't understand. What do you mean, "It's not what God wants me to do?" How do you KNOW what God wants you to do? Does God ever AUDIBLY speak to some Christians on this forum? Or, does God speak through the Bible, or thru' one's conscience, or thru' the teachings and the traditions of the religion of Christianity, or . . .?

Yes, I know that as a professing Christian I SHOULD believe that we know what God wants of us but I am so skeptical whenever I hear someone say that. Sorry. Most of the time I hear mere words from people that at times don't seem to connect with any reasoning abilities they might possess. Many 'religious' Christians on these type forums appear to be almost trance-like and robotic ...as if merely quoting a passage of condemnation from the Bible to some 'sinner' makes them righteous.

God gave us a brain with which to reason. He also gave us a Bible which (evidently) seems to confuse the heck out of people. No two people seem to read it and agree on every issue. I notice that one group (the perceived righteous ones, I guess) make the claim that if one doesn't see the scriptures as THEY do then one is being misled ...by Satan, I guess. Some others ('gay' folks in this instance) appear to be under the influence of the Christian masses and are heavily under some 'guilt trip'. Is THIS what God wants? I've also noticed that those homosexuals who claim to recognize their 'I'm a miserable sinner' by virtue of my sexuality and will therefore remain celibant to appease God but probably mainly to appease Christians' are then given praises by the perceived 'righteous ones.' I personally find this to be rather sickening.

So, what DOES God want of us?

 

[Macarius]

This is something I posted in another thread about homosexuality. I think it is relevant here... The key is to take this from within Orthodox ecclesiology - which is, to say the least, NOT egalitarian nor ecumenical, but furthermore is agnostic as to the fate / validity of those outside her communion (with the exception of those who directly schism from her).

As for the Catholic poster who challenged why our interpretations of the Bible had validity against that of a KKK member - we stand in the tradition on both counts. Homosexuality is traditionally condemned as a sin, whereas being racially different traditionally is NOT. Therefore, the criterion of traditional understandings of scripture holding precedence in the Orthodox Church is being consistently applied. We aren't being hypocritical - we're being true to our approach to theology.

As I am an untrained theologian my reply will be somewhat speculative. That is to say - it makes sense to me, but I'm not confident enough to say that it is "the" Orthodox reply to this question. My conclusions are Orthodox, however, and perhaps that is in some way sufficient.

Our theology of marriage begins, as all things do, with the Holy Trinity. We profess that God is love in His essence - love within Himself. This, however, cannot be a narcissistic sort of selfish love of one monad unto Himself. Rather, as we are called to imitate that love, we know that love to be other-centric and self-denying. This is manifested in the great mystery of the Triune God. He is Father loving Son loving Spirit. While there is hierarchy in the relationships (Father as fountainhead of divinity) they are co-equal and of the same nature, fully God. One God, Three Persons, Perfect Hierarchy, Perfect Love.

We must understand this love to have any hope of understanding human love. We were made for relationship - specifically relationship which is ascetic (that is, teaches us to be other-centered and thus helps break down our own ego). Furthermore, we were made for relationships that, while having hierarchy, are so perfect in their love that the hierarchy fades to the background and we see functional (and true, thanks to the perfection of this love) equality. Human love can never achieve the fullness of union that the Divine Love has by essence, but we can begin to imitate it. This is what it means for us to become one with one another. Marriage is the divine sacrament in which these principles of love find fulfillment as an icon of the Divine Love.

There is another divine relationship, however, to which marriage is also an icon: that of Christ to His Church. Ephesians directly relates that to the marriage. We have, as prophecy, the words in Genesis that speak of a man leaving His father (in heaven) and His mother (on earth) to join with His wife that the two may become one flesh. This certainly speaks of earthly marriage, but you can see how it prophecies and finds fulfillment in Christ.

At what point do we understand ourselves to have become one flesh with our Lord and Bridegroom? Well, He became man in the Incarnation, joining the divine and human natures so that we may participate in His divine energies. We also enter, iconically, into His death and resurrection (and thus the energies of His resurrection - His saving grace) by baptism. We recieve the grace of His forgiving hand in confession. We recieve the Spirit - even as He had it (as a man) - in our personal Pentecost: Chrismation. Chrismation makes us into "little annointed ones" - we become little Christs. Those who are ordained become icons of Christ in His role as priest, revealing in the liturgy the things of heaven, serving the faithful as Christ served His disciples.

The fullness of our oneness with Christ, however, in this lifetime, is fulfilled in the eucharist. This is the eros love of this wedding between Christ and Church - the foretaste and full realization (for those who have eyes to see) of the feast of the bridegroom. Certainly we look forward to the 2nd coming, but the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand today - Christ came to save this world - and the eucharist is our full participation in that. Here, our Lord comes to us in the flesh, and we take the body of our Lord into ourselves, and we become one flesh with Him. If there is no physical union, there is no marriage (hence why we still call Mary the bride unwedded). We are Christ's bride. We are one with Him.

Marriage is, therefore, an icon of this love. Here we have the man, who is to be like Christ to His wife - so loving of her as to give the totality of his life to her benefit. He is to give her all his dreams, all his hopes. To make his life about her life. To serve and not to demand. To die to himself. This is to be done no matter what she does in return, for if we demanded that our wives reciprocated we would be hypocrites. Christ Himself has the worst bride possible - think of all the sins we commit! We must thank God that He has provided us with such a model of a husband, for we, as a bride, must be a hideous harlot and adultress, yet He dies for us.

Here also we have the woman - the one who recieves the body of her lord in that act of vulnerability and love, who embraces the totality of who he is and submits to him. That is both a physical and emotional recieving, embracing, and submitting. Here we have hierarchy, but hierarchy which, when lived out with the love that is the Divine Love, fades into non-existence and becomes perfect love.

Here is one level on which homosexuality is "wrong" (or spiritually unhealthy / not-an-icon-of-the-kingdom). Two men cannot represent Christ and the Church. The Church is uniquely feminine. To take that from her is to distort the image. Furthermore, Christ is uniquely male (in so much that He became a boy), and though God is in essence gender neutral (by human standards) within the context of this typology, God is the male. Two males or two females distorts the image and is, therefore, not the sacrament of marriage. With no sacrament, there is to be no sex. Therefore, since the Church cannot marry two men or two women (as they don't form the correct and given icon of Christ and the Church) two men or two women ought not to have sex outside of that marriage.

Another level exists to this, though. The eucharist is not just unitive in nature. It is life producing. We have Christ born in us by the grace of the sacrament, and by that birth we become more Christ like. In this, again, we have a woman as our model (for in so much as we are the Church, we are feminine). Mary, the Theotokos, is our model and hope. She, by the "yes" she gave to the incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit, and by that union and at the good will of the Father, she bore the Son physically in her womb. She BORE Christ and had Christ BORN from her. By this union, she became more Christ like. She is truly the icon of the bride of God! In this way, she is an icon of the Church.

Homosexual union cannot produce life - not naturally, anyway - but heterosexual union (generally) can. It fulfills the eucharistic Christ-Church icon to its fullest. And by giving birth to children (the prayers for which, by the way, are all over the marriage sacrament - most who see an Orthodox wedding are suprised by how much focus is paid to having children) we learn, again, to be self-sacrificing in our love. It becomes about the child, not about 'me.' This again, goes back to our understanding of Divine Love within the Trinity. Because homosexual union can never produce such a miracle, it cannot recieve the prayers of the sacrament of marriage and, once again, becomes sex outside of marriage.

Some occasionally bring up those who cannot have children from within hetero-sexual relationships. The first point about how man-woman = Christ-Church still suffices on its own, however, I also accept the idea of the miraculous births God accomplished for the infirtile. It fits so perfectly into this typological understanding. Who is it that produces life in us? Well, it may be explanable biologically, but ultimately it is a miracle of God. The "miraculous" births remind us of that. Keep in mind that Mary was celibate, yet was a perfect icon of marriage to God. There are celibate men and women in the Church for whom she is an icon of their life (along with John the Baptist and Christ Himself). Some marriages choose to live as brother and sister (St. John of Krondstadt did this).

I think the principle is this: the marriage sacrament, if we are going to make general rules about it, cannot be between man and man or woman and woman because no possibility of producing new life exists. Because it is possible (even if unlikely) between man and woman, the church can marry them. Beyond that, it is up to God.

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

Pedophelia is not a sexual orientation---

Somethings which have always been a church teaching:slavery.

That has changed so the justification that that has been the way things are is not valid.

Pedophiles are as unable to change the object of their desire as any "normal" heterosexual or homosexual. That is to say, to them it feels as unavoidable as, say, skin tone.

A better route for you, rhetorically speaking, would be to challenge the pedophilia analogy on the grounds that there is a CLEAR victim in pedophilia, whereas there is no direct emotional scarring in homosexuality. The arguments against homosexuality are spiritual, not emotional in nature.

Just a tip

Yes - the Church has allowed for slavery in society, when slavery was, more or less, identical to today's working class (that is to say, a difficult circumstance, but one which, ESPECIALLY in Roman society, could provide true upward mobility). The Church has ALSO ALWAYS taught that masters (bosses) should treat slaves (employees) as brothers and equals, seeking to love them as themselves.

The consistent pattern of the Church has been to recommend that people stay within the power structures they are born into (unless opportunity for change readily avails itself, in which case love demands we change), but transform those circumstances into opportunities to love and to show service to God.

So far as I'm aware, the Church has NEVER CONDONED slavery nor recommended it NOR called it right. It has ONLY, and ONLY in a pastoral sense, recommended to slaves and slave owners that they accept their circumstance (in the healthy sense that one accepts any circumstance as from God's providence until He should choose to change it) and LOVE absolutely within that.

The same advice is given to children / parents and husbands/wives (within the patriarchal society).

Anyhow, just thought I'd give an aside to defend the traditional approach as a valid one in the case.

Having abolished slavery in the West (for the most part - it's underground), I cannot see the Church recommending it re-appear. Our duty to love remains the same.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[BigBadWlf]

This is something I posted in another thread about homosexuality. I think it is relevant here... The key is to take this from within Orthodox ecclesiology - which is, to say the least, NOT egalitarian nor ecumenical, but furthermore is agnostic as to the fate / validity of those outside her communion (with the exception of those who directly schism from her).

As for the Catholic poster who challenged why our interpretations of the Bible had validity against that of a KKK member - we stand in the tradition on both counts. Homosexuality is traditionally condemned as a sin, whereas being racially different traditionally is NOT. Therefore, the criterion of traditional understandings of scripture holding precedence in the Orthodox Church is being consistently applied. We aren't being hypocritical - we're being true to our approach to theology.

You might want to check your traditions…

Well slavery is a tradition…by your logic slavery must be an acceptable practice then.
Or will you declare that somehow magically ‘different’

Our theology of marriage begins, as all things do, with the Holy Trinity. We profess that God is love in His essence - love within Himself. This, however, cannot be a narcissistic sort of selfish love of one monad unto Himself. Rather, as we are called to imitate that love, we know that love to be other-centric and self-denying. This is manifested in the great mystery of the Triune God. He is Father loving Son loving Spirit. While there is hierarchy in the relationships (Father as fountainhead of divinity) they are co-equal and of the same nature, fully God. One God, Three Persons, Perfect Hierarchy, Perfect Love.

We must understand this love to have any hope of understanding human love. We were made for relationship - specifically relationship which is ascetic (that is, teaches us to be other-centered and thus helps break down our own ego). Furthermore, we were made for relationships that, while having hierarchy, are so perfect in their love that the hierarchy fades to the background and we see functional (and true, thanks to the perfection of this love) equality. Human love can never achieve the fullness of union that the Divine Love has by essence, but we can begin to imitate it. This is what it means for us to become one with one another. Marriage is the divine sacrament in which these principles of love find fulfillment as an icon of the Divine Love.

None of which precludes same sex marriage

There is another divine relationship, however, to which marriage is also an icon: that of Christ to His Church. Ephesians directly relates that to the marriage. We have, as prophecy, the words in Genesis that speak of a man leaving His father (in heaven) and His mother (on earth) to join with His wife that the two may become one flesh. This certainly speaks of earthly marriage, but you can see how it prophecies and finds fulfillment in Christ.

not really


This same could be used as an argument against men (women apparels are not included in much of anything) leaving their parents and going off to school

Marriage is, therefore, an icon of this love. Here we have the man, who is to be like Christ to His wife - so loving of her as to give the totality of his life to her benefit. He is to give her all his dreams, all his hopes. To make his life about her life. To serve and not to demand. To die to himself. This is to be done no matter what she does in return, for if we demanded that our wives reciprocated we would be hypocrites. Christ Himself has the worst bride possible - think of all the sins we commit! We must thank God that He has provided us with such a model of a husband, for we, as a bride, must be a hideous harlot and adultress, yet He dies for us.

Again…nothing excluding same sex marriage

Here is one level on which homosexuality is "wrong" (or spiritually unhealthy / not-an-icon-of-the-kingdom). Two men cannot represent Christ and the Church. The Church is uniquely feminine.

Which is why its run by men

To take that from her is to distort the image. Furthermore, Christ is uniquely male (in so much that He became a boy), and though God is in essence gender neutral (by human standards) within the context of this typology, God is the male. Two males or two females distorts the image and is, therefore, not the sacrament of marriage. With no sacrament, there is to be no sex. Therefore, since the Church cannot marry two men or two women (as they don't form the correct and given icon of Christ and the Church) two men or two women ought not to have sex outside of that marriage.

Recognize that marriage only became a sacrament about 700 years ago…prior to that the church considered it a “necessary evil” and even after it was upgraded to sacrament weddings were not performed in churches because doing so would acknowledge that the people getting married would be having sex.

Homosexual union cannot produce life - not naturally, anyway - but heterosexual union (generally) can. It fulfills the eucharistic Christ-Church icon to its fullest. And by giving birth to children (the prayers for which, by the way, are all over the marriage sacrament - most who see an Orthodox wedding are suprised by how much focus is paid to having children) we learn, again, to be self-sacrificing in our love. It becomes about the child, not about 'me.' This again, goes back to our understanding of Divine Love within the Trinity. Because homosexual union can never produce such a miracle, it cannot recieve the prayers of the sacrament of marriage and, once again, becomes sex outside of marriage.

And this is why individuals who are sterile cannot and never have been able to get married…right?

Some occasionally bring up those who cannot have children from within hetero-sexual relationships. The first point about how man-woman = Christ-Church still suffices on its own, however, I also accept the idea of the miraculous births God accomplished for the infirtile.

All births are miracles. And the children of gay and lesbian couples especially so as they are not accidents but brought forth though the conscious effort of the child’s parents and through the parents love.

It fits so perfectly into this typological understanding. Who is it that produces life in us? Well, it may be explanable biologically, but ultimately it is a miracle of God. The "miraculous" births remind us of that. Keep in mind that Mary was celibate, yet was a perfect icon of marriage to God. There are celibate men and women in the Church for whom she is an icon of their life (along with John the Baptist and Christ Himself). Some marriages choose to live as brother and sister (St. John of Krondstadt did this).

Ultimately you are presenting a double standard. On the one hand you want to use fertility as a means to justify prejudice. While at the same time you wish to remove the issue of fertility from being a concern for the majority

I think the principle is this: the marriage sacrament, if we are going to make general rules about it, cannot be between man and man or woman and woman because no possibility of producing new life exists. Because it is possible (even if unlikely) between man and woman, the church can marry them. Beyond that, it is up to God.

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Macarius

double standard again

 

[BigBadWlf]

Pedophiles are as unable to change the object of their desire as any "normal" heterosexual or homosexual. That is to say, to them it feels as unavoidable as, say, skin tone. [/quote ]

False. Pedophiles are almost exclusively heterosexual and almost always involved in a sexual relationship with the mother of the child/children they are sexually abusing.

So far as I'm aware, the Church has NEVER CONDONED slavery nor recommended it NOR called it right. It has ONLY, and ONLY in a pastoral sense, recommended to slaves and slave owners that they accept their circumstance (in the healthy sense that one accepts any circumstance as from God's providence until He should choose to change it) and LOVE absolutely within that.

The fourth council of Toledo ruled that it was quite all right for Christians to own slaves. They however also found that it was wrong for Jews to own Christian slaves: “Jews should not be allowed to have Christian slaves nor to buy Christian slaves, nor to obtain them by the kindness of any one; for it is not right that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Anti-Christ.

This council also found it permissible for the church to make its own slaves deacons