Have you read this?

[127.0.0.1]

I'm with you, HeyHomie. I couldn't do it. I remember a conversation among Orthodox Christians counseling a young man who considered himself gay to marry a woman. After all, sex is such a small part of a marriage, you just have to do it a few years to have your children and then you can both abstain for the faith. How horrible for the young woman who might become his wife-- to be tossed from baby maker to monastery.

I couldn't be a part of a faith that didn't value my marriage or my family planning decisions. I have respect for those who can, though.

Poor wife...what about poor him? For him, the sex would probably be terrible. It'd be like a straight guy trying to pretend to have attraction for a gay man.

Ugh...yeah...that's sounds like something some people might say. Oh, and if being "tossed from baby maker to monastery" is too difficult for you...that's your not praying hard enough for God to give you the strength to do it.

So in other words...this is the way and if you can't do it then there's something wrong with you.

As soon as they ask you to do the impossible, they whip out the prayer card. If you can't do it, it's because you don't pray enough.

Fortunately there's a light at the end of the tunnel. But I'll have to whisper it...
Neither doctrine nor dogma say that you have to be a monastic or a parent or even married in order to go to heaven. You are not saved by your good deeds.

 

[Rembrandtfan]

Abstinence outside of marriage is a must.

Abstinence within marriage is the goal.

Do I need to lock myself in a box to isolate myself from this world? Do I need to starve in order to not be perceived as non-materialistic?
Do I need to forbid myself a hug in order to remove myself from the passions of the flesh.
Should I duck tape my mouth shut?
Should I just remain single then, since (outside of children) the whole goal of married life is to act single?

Like I said, there's the Orthodox Faith and then there's the Orthodox Church.

Note, this entire rant is riddled with my own personal biasness. But thanks for reading my rant. I feel better now.

Didn't they read the scripture about the how husband and wife are not to deny each other and are only to abstain (which is completely optional) for only a short amount of time?

 

[127.0.0.1]

Sure they've probably read it. It's just that that optional path comes HIGHLY recommended in Orthodoxy.

Sure, you could have relations, of course, your priest may deny you Communion, since, by doing so, you've broken the fast.

Believe it or not, I've encountered (on the web) some members who, if I understand them correctly, actually approve of being denied Communion. If I remember right, they felt that this was one of the reasons why the Orthodox Church was so much better than any other Church, because you couldn't just do whatever you want. In short it actually seems to be a selling point.

I haven't had Communion for like....(shrug)....gee...I sure hope it's not important. Anyway, if I remember correctly, I once read that some priests were so strict about it, that their parishioners were only able to take Communion either a couple of times a year or was it a couple of times in their life? But I think that was mostly just in the Orthodox countries.

Personally, to me, it seems a little distressing but after awhile it's not so bad...you just put if off till a Holiday comes or something...then you go to confession and my priest always says, "Not this Sunday, but the next Sunday, prepare to receive Communion." So I try my best to live in a box (if you know what I mean) and then see if I can make it a week.

 

[Rembrandtfan]

Sure they've probably read it. It's just that that optional path comes HIGHLY recommended in Orthodoxy.

Sure, you could have relations, of course, your priest may deny you Communion, since, by doing so, you've broken the fast.

Believe it or not, I've encountered (on the web) some members who, if I understand them correctly, actually approve of being denied Communion. If I remember right, they felt that this was one of the reasons why the Orthodox Church was so much better than any other Church, because you couldn't just do whatever you want. In short it actually seems to be a selling point.

I haven't had Communion for like....(shrug)....gee...I sure hope it's not important. Anyway, if I remember correctly, I once read that some priests were so strict about it, that their parishioners were only able to take Communion either a couple of times a year or was it a couple of times in their life? But I think that was mostly just in the Orthodox countries.

Personally, to me, it seems a little distressing but after awhile it's not so bad...you just put if off till a Holiday comes or something...then you go to confession and my priest always says, "Not this Sunday, but the next Sunday, prepare to receive Communion." So I try my best to live in a box (if you know what I mean) and then see if I can make it a week.

How do they know when you've broken the fast? Do you have to report it? Seems like an invasion of privacy.

Honestly, the church just needs to stay out of our bedrooms.

 

[snoochface]

How do they know when you've broken the fast? Do you have to report it? Seems like an invasion of privacy.

Honestly, the church just needs to stay out of our bedrooms.

Yup. I was denied communion at my father's funeral, of all places, for having the audacity to get married. That was the last I had to do with the Catholic church. It's not just Orthodox churches who seem far too interested in the bedrooms of their parishoners.

 

[127.0.0.1]

How do they know when you've broken the fast? Do you have to report it? Seems like an invasion of privacy.

It's called confession. Confession the night before, in some churches, is mandatory before receiving Communion. Fortunately my church is a little more lax. You don't have to go to confession the night before, but there is a limit.

Honestly, the church just needs to stay out of our bedrooms.

Gee, wouldn't that be nice (sigh).

They won't even recognize their own teaching that homosexuality is not a sin.
Read up on: John Boswell & Adelphopoiia

They won't support women priests (I'd be one thing if they didn't theologically agree, but most of them just seem biased against the idea).

They want to limit intimate expression. Next to Public School, I had to turn to Tantra Taoism and Buddhism to learn about sex. All the Orthodox Church ever taught me was, practice abstinence, sex is for procreation, make it as passionless as possible, among other things. Fortunately, to my understanding, none of this is dogma.

 

[Rembrandtfan]

They want to limit intimate expression. Next to Public School, I had to turn to Tantra Taoism and Buddhism to learn about sex. All the Orthodox Church ever taught me was, practice abstinence, sex is for procreation, make it as passionless as possible, among other things. Fortunately, to my understanding, none of this is dogma.

There are some good Christian books out there on the subject, and they are anything but prudish. Even in the bible, if you read Song of Solomon, it's obviously not just for procreation.

 

[127.0.0.1]

I know. I haven't actually read the Song of Solomon, though I've seen it quoted. For the real technique and in-depth know how, Tantra is, I think, much more informative.

Yup. I was denied communion at my father's funeral, of all places, for having the audacity to get married. That was the last I had to do with the Catholic church. It's not just Orthodox churches who seem far too interested in the bedrooms of their parishoners.

What was it about your marriage that they objected to (if you don't mind my asking)? Was it because you didn't plan to have kids?

 

[snoochface]

I know. I haven't actually read the Song of Solomon, though I've seen it quoted. For the real technique and in-depth know how, Tantra is, I think, much more informative.



What was it about your marriage that they objected to (if you don't mind my asking)? Was it because you didn't plan to have kids?

In a nutshell, it was because I was married in my parents' home by a Baptist minister so my dying father (he died four days later) could be present at my wedding, because the Catholic church refused to marry me there since the home is not a "holy place". The priest at my dad's funeral said that I should maintain separate residences from my husband, or at the very least separate bedrooms, until our wedding could be blessed by the church, and until then we were living in sin. He made a big scene at the funeral home the night before, refused me communion at the church service, and made another scene at the graveside until my aunt told him to shut up and leave.

 

[127.0.0.1]

In a nutshell, it was because I was married in my parents' home by a Baptist minister so my dying father (he died four days later) could be present at my wedding, because the Catholic church refused to marry me there since the home is not a "holy place". The priest at my dad's funeral said that I should maintain separate residences from my husband, or at the very least separate bedrooms, until our wedding could be blessed by the church, and until then we were living in sin. He made a big scene at the funeral home the night before, refused me communion at the church service, and made another scene at the graveside until my aunt told him to shut up and leave.

That's insane

 

[JulySheMustFly]

In a nutshell, it was because I was married in my parents' home by a Baptist minister so my dying father (he died four days later) could be present at my wedding, because the Catholic church refused to marry me there since the home is not a "holy place". The priest at my dad's funeral said that I should maintain separate residences from my husband, or at the very least separate bedrooms, until our wedding could be blessed by the church, and until then we were living in sin. He made a big scene at the funeral home the night before, refused me communion at the church service, and made another scene at the graveside until my aunt told him to shut up and leave.

:o

 

[cherryblossom03]

In a nutshell, it was because I was married in my parents' home by a Baptist minister so my dying father (he died four days later) could be present at my wedding, because the Catholic church refused to marry me there since the home is not a "holy place". The priest at my dad's funeral said that I should maintain separate residences from my husband, or at the very least separate bedrooms, until our wedding could be blessed by the church, and until then we were living in sin. He made a big scene at the funeral home the night before, refused me communion at the church service, and made another scene at the graveside until my aunt told him to shut up and leave.

Wow, just wow. If someone had done that to me at my father's funeral, it would not have been pretty.

I went home for Christmas this year since the husband is gone and the whole 2 weeks my mom, grandmother, sis and sis in law were telling me "deep down I really do want kids, I'm just scared" or "you wanted kids when you were a teenager". My response was yeah, I did because I was told good Christian girls get married and have babies. When I got out on my own and got married I realized how much the idea of having kids just did not appeal. I started thinking for myself. It's hard to find a church that does not immediately pounce on the fact we have no kids. It's like the only way we're allowed to attend is if we promise to have babies. Other than that, we don't have much in common with others in the church because we're not elderly, middle aged with kids or young with kids. We don't really know where our place is.

 

[snoochface]

That's insane

:o

That's how I felt too.

Wow, just wow. If someone had done that to me at my father's funeral, it would not have been pretty.

It wasn't. I wrote a letter to the archbishop, it went into the Washington Post religion section, I got an official apology, the whole 9-yards.

I went home for Christmas this year since the husband is gone and the whole 2 weeks my mom, grandmother, sis and sis in law were telling me "deep down I really do want kids, I'm just scared" or "you wanted kids when you were a teenager". My response was yeah, I did because I was told good Christian girls get married and have babies. When I got out on my own and got married I realized how much the idea of having kids just did not appeal. I started thinking for myself. It's hard to find a church that does not immediately pounce on the fact we have no kids. It's like the only way we're allowed to attend is if we promise to have babies. Other than that, we don't have much in common with others in the church because we're not elderly, middle aged with kids or young with kids. We don't really know where our place is.

Yeah that is exactly the same problem we are having. I wish we all lived near each other, we could start our own church!

 

[127.0.0.1]

...I wish we all lived near each other, we could start our own church!

Yeah, we'd break all the rules! Here's to the black sheep's of the herd!

 

[Rebekka]

Well, Commando182 and RebekkaH, I guess you two come from a mindset that I just can't wrap my brain around. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. It's just that I don't get it.

If my church espoused doctrines and attitudes that I found antagonistic or unreasonable, I would leave it. I don't believe that any one church (I by "church" I mean "body of believers united by doctrine/worship style/leadership structure/etc." and NOT "local congregation") has a monopoly on truth.

I mean, I love the Restoration Movement (my church), and will probably attend RM churches for the rest of my life. But if they turned on me I'd be gone. There's just as much truth being preached at the Baptist church across the street, or the Calvary Chapel church down the road, or wherever.

The point is, there is no alternative. What's most important to me is a church's theology. Theologically (e.g. when dogmas are concerned), I agree the most with the catholic church. In fact, I think I agree with all of it. But that's different from some other aspects of the church, e.g. doctrines and disciplines. One aspect that I disagree with is my church's stand on birth control, and voluntary childlessness in general. But that is not a theological issue, it's a moral one. And in morals, I follow my own conscience (though I try to follow my church's rules too - only if I find them immoral, I don't. I find it immoral to force people to have children, so I don't follow that rule).

But when I look at other churches/denominations, I don't see one that I fully agree with from a theological point of view. Not one. Except my own church. The fact that some other denominations are closer to my ideas on birth control or childlessness doesn't make them theologically satisfying to me.

So leaving isn't an option. I see a lot of good things in my church, and there isn't a better alternative for me. I've tried to explain this to hardcore catholics and protestants of all kinds, but often they don't get why people like me stay catholic. This is the best I can do - if you still don't understand, I can't explain it any better, sorry.

Realistically speaking, I don't think it's very common that people agree with their denomination on every single thing. I think we all look for the church that we agree with the most. Same as in politics.

 

[127.0.0.1]

To add to what RebekkaH said. It's like I said earlier. There's the Orthodox Faith and then there's the Orthodox Church.

Go to google
Look up jn1034 - a blog site
Then look up Orthodox KGB -note, this has more to do with the Russian Orthodox Church and I go to an [SIZE=-1]Antiochian[/SIZE] Church

Look up, "Terrorist-Induced Self-Hatred: A Gay Orthodox Case Study"

Then Look up "Homosexuality by Archpriest Joseph F Purpura"

Then look up "Orthodox Spirituality and Theological Sexuality - An Uninhibited Review"

Also I highly recommend, "Orthodoxy's Genital Caste System of Inbred Misogyny - Male Preference (Straight or Gay) Eclipses and Invalidates Women's Rights (Straight or Gay)"

True two of the articles are about homosexuality. But it should offer an interesting contrast. Needless to say, I like JN1034 much better, but unfortunately their message is like a voice in the wilderness. Contrast their teachings with just about any other Orthodox site and I doubt you'll see much congruence. For example I read on a particular site,

"As I said above, sex is meant to be the expression of a lifelong union of love between a man and a woman. Love is not a feeling, but the act of giving o[wash my mouth]neself to the other. According to the Bible and the Church, homosexual sex can never be an expression of God's kind of love. It is always motivated by lust. A man can love a man deeply and from the heart. He can show this love in any number of ways, but sex will never be o[wash my mouth]ne of them. The same is true of relationships between women. When sex enters into same-gender relationships it poisons them, because God never meant it to be a part of them."

"Love is not a feeling, but the act of giving o[wash my mouth]neself to the other." Does that sound right to you? Do you not feel love? Is it just an act, other centered, though it may be?

Would you say with certainty that homosexuals do not actually love each other but rather they live together to fulfill their lust? Oh, because we all know that straight folk never lust within marriage (or at least they're not supposed to). There you have it. The purpose of sex is not connection, nor bonding, nor spiritual fulfillment, for all these things a homosexual couple may attain. No, the purpose of sex is procreation, therefore only straight couples may commit this act because love is an act as opposed to a feeling.

Sorry to go so off topic but my point is that whatever the storm rages outside, inside the Faith there is truth. And as long as there is truth I'm not leaving. JN1034 is a great site, I HIGHLY recommenced it, it's way more than an Orthodox gay blog. Once you understand sex as an expression of love and not just an act all arguments that say sex is for procreation, will sound so naive even from a Christian perspective.

At least that's my two cents on the subject.