Homosexuality Questions

[Ignatius21]

Touchstone Archives: Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?

I think this article, while very long, is very worth reading. It does put forth some pretty good arguments from a "secular" perspective, though obviously he writes from a Christian perspective.

I think our greatest weakness in presenting arguments of this kind, as he shows here, is that marriage itself (and please don't qualify it as "heterosexual" or "traditional," because to do so is to admit that there exist other arrangements that can also be called "marriage") is extraordinarily weakened by our society's individualism...seeing a marriage as a legal agreement between two individuals who may or may not have children...thereby eliminating the historic position of the family as the building block of a society. And the widespread assumption of contraception as a default state in or out of marriage, has pretty well divorced procreation from marriage...you can procrate, or not...being married, or not...what's the difference?

 

[Blonde]

From the perspective of cultural anthropology, we might consider it a distinct possibility that certain taboos, such as those against homosexuality, came to exist because they (taboos) served or protected communities in some important way.

I'm no expert in this matter. But I would like to suggest that we may indeed see, someday, what the ultimate impact of the removal of this particular taboo from within our modern society will be, and we might painfully discover that its effects are not in society's best interest.

Or we'll be destroyed with fire and brimstone and be a byword.
That's why it is important to look beyond ourself and our own worthless opinion and let God be our guide.

 

[Ignatius21]

I think Vladyka Jonah made an excellent point when he said that we don't oppose sin because it says so in a book someplace, we oppose it because it destroys people's lives.

I agree...the really tricky part, though, is that a major component of sinfulness is calling "good," that which is actually evil and self destructive...thinking of Romans 1 and those who not only engaged in depravity but "gave hearty approval to those who did likewise."

People with addictions often spend years in a phase of denial, sometimes even thinking that the addiction is somehow improving them or making their lives better!

Before someone can confront sin, he/she must be able to acknowledge that it actually is destroying someone's life. We have a remarkable capacity for self-deception.

I'm really not sure how this works in practice! You can tell the person sitting in the buring house that he's in danger, but if he says "actually, I'm the one who's warm!" then he's kind of stuck.

Homosexual relationships cannot inherently procreate anything.

I find that this argument is past its prime...while TRUE...and just meets with bewildered stares of "you still think that way?" Why? Courtesy of a mindset that sees children as an expense rather than a blessing, contraception has largely eliminated procreation from marriage, or even from relationships generally. Then, courtesy of a 50+% divorce rate and the elevation of the single parent as normal, marriages and the raising of children are pretty well off the stage. And finally I've heard the appeal to science, that goes "oh yeah? I know a lesbian couple that went down to a fertility lab and came back pregnant." Actually I DO know a lesbian couple who did just that. They don't see any significance to the fact that the opposite gender had to play a role somewhere even if only as an anonymous donor. They just saw it as a "procedure." Really, how often do you think of the cow when you buy milk at the store?

Homosexual behavior is sinful because it gratifies lust without that godly and grace-filled experience of sexual differentiation. Not to get too graphic, but heterosexual sex is biologically indicated in a way that homosexual sex simply isn't. That's an aspect of our design as human beings, and why homosexual desires are disordered, and shouldn't be acted upon.

I agree with you again, but struggle to see how our post-Christian, post-Western, post-Sanity society will ever hear that argument anymore, without fire and brimstone coming first...or else without God just letting our depravity run its course. Why mention "design" to a culture that really just means "random evolution" when they use that word? Who cares about gratification without differentiation? Pornography is one of the biggest industries in our country.

It's a twisted mess

 

[Ignatius21]

.

 

[JediMobius]

Touchstone Archives: Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?

I think this article, while very long, is very worth reading. It does put forth some pretty good arguments from a "secular" perspective, though obviously he writes from a Christian perspective.

I think our greatest weakness in presenting arguments of this kind, as he shows here, is that marriage itself (and please don't qualify it as "heterosexual" or "traditional," because to do so is to admit that there exist other arrangements that can also be called "marriage") is extraordinarily weakened by our society's individualism...seeing a marriage as a legal agreement between two individuals who may or may not have children...thereby eliminating the historic position of the family as the building block of a society. And the widespread assumption of contraception as a default state in or out of marriage, has pretty well divorced procreation from marriage...you can procrate, or not...being married, or not...what's the difference?

To answer the rhetorical question, marital norms are important to maintain the example of the ideal environment for children to be raised. Studies show that the lasting marriage relationship is the ideal environment for the benefit of children in many ways. Practically, in a society founded on civil liberty, this means strengthening the institution of marriage while still allowing the rest to exercise their freedom as consenting adults, though apart from marriage, as well as encouraging adoption of orphans by any fit parents in the absence of a healthy marriage relationship. For that matter, to the overall benefit of society, it may even be prudent to discourage temporary marriages altogether. There should be penalties owed to society for breaking such a crucial contract!

To piggyback on Ignatius, folks should read this article as well: What Is Marriage?

 

[JediMobius]

I find that this argument is past its prime...while TRUE...and just meets with bewildered stares of "you still think that way?" Why? Courtesy of a mindset that sees children as an expense rather than a blessing, contraception has largely eliminated procreation from marriage, or even from relationships generally. Then, courtesy of a 50+% divorce rate and the elevation of the single parent as normal, marriages and the raising of children are pretty well off the stage. And finally I've heard the appeal to science, that goes "oh yeah? I know a lesbian couple that went down to a fertility lab and came back pregnant." Actually I DO know a lesbian couple who did just that. They don't see any significance to the fact that the opposite gender had to play a role somewhere even if only as an anonymous donor. They just saw it as a "procedure." Really, how often do you think of the cow when you buy milk at the store?

Maybe the answer is purely economic. If the middle class is restored, and children no longer break the bank and/or diminish the lifestyle of the parents, then children won't be seen as an expense.

Obviously, we can't easily break cognitive bias. So arguing with the opposition is problematic as it will tend only to strengthen their positional bias toward their own preconceptions in spite of evidence to the contrary.

There's really no earthly cure for the biggest part of the problem, is there?

 

[truefiction1]

The real question is: how is it, exactly, that an individual's indulgence in homosexual sexuality with a homosexual marriage partner serves to separate, or cut off that individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

If you can answer this, then perhaps you can also explain how it is that heterosexual indulgence with ones spouse supposedly does not, in the same way, separate, or cut off an individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

 

[Ignatius21]

The real question is: how is it, exactly, that an individual's indulgence in homosexual sexuality with a homosexual marriage partner serves to separate, or cut off that individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

If you can answer this, then perhaps you can also explain how it is that heterosexual indulgence with ones spouse supposedly does not, in the same way, separate, or cut off an individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

The whole basis of the Christian argument is that marriage unites two people sacramentally into the mystery of Christ's marriage to the Church. "Indulging" in marriage brings people into the one-flesh union that is reflective of the eternal reality. Any other use of sexuality drives people apart, despite appearances, and drives people away from communion with God as you say. The problem is that you can't prove "mystical participation in the divine union" logically, culturally or biologically, so anyone who does not already accept that argument will simply roll their eyes.

 

[rusmeister]

The real question is: how is it, exactly, that an individual's indulgence in homosexual sexuality with a homosexual marriage partner serves to separate, or cut off that individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

If you can answer this, then perhaps you can also explain how it is that heterosexual indulgence with ones spouse supposedly does not, in the same way, separate, or cut off an individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

I don't think that's the real question - or rather, it has the same answer on how ANY sin serves to separate us from God.

So your formation of the issue is really off here. Marriage is blessed in the Church - even Protestant fundamentalists will rush to admit that; there is no sin in the first place. Ignatius and Jedi are hammering it (again, great thesis, Jedi! Did anyone else read it?).

I think it vital to deal with the question is those secular terms - that kills argument even by the non-religious. Christians tempted to such revisionism might still accept theological points, which are many and manifest, but since on the whole, its acceptance is based heavily on unbelief and simplistic and ignorant arguments that mix and confuse the concepts behind love - and can be shown to do so - the 'secular' basis for marriage really crushes all arguments for the modern denial of marriage and its abominable parody in application to people living in fornication in general and sodomic fornication in particular.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The real question is: how is it, exactly, that an individual's indulgence in homosexual sexuality with a homosexual marriage partner serves to separate, or cut off that individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

because to sin, in any way, is to miss the mark that God set up. does not matter how far off the mark you miss it, if you miss the mark, you miss the mark. marriage, as seen in scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is man and wife. that is the mark. man and man (or woman and woman) misses that mark, and therefore cuts one off from God.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

First you have to explain to them why much of heterosexuality is sinful!

I'm guessing at least 80 percent of heterosexaul relationships are consider sinful,but most only seem to care about,what Gay and lesbian do.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Because its a male having sex with a male.

So is that the reason,why people claim it sinful.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

If you look at the studies that have been done:

Homosexual men have a much shorter lifespan than heterosexual men.
The vast majority of gay relationships are not monogamous, as some may claim. They have 3 times as many partners as single heterosexuals, exposing themselves to much greater risk of STDs.

Sorry I don't have the studies offhand but they are on the net...

Funny most heterosexual men,I've knowm are always having more than 1 partner,even thought before they get caught,they claim to be faithful to there wife.

 

[truefiction1]

The real question is: how is it, exactly, that an individual's indulgence in homosexual sexuality with a homosexual marriage partner serves to separate, or cut off that individual from communion with the life giving Spirit of God?

Please forgive my arrogance in presenting my own question as if it was based upon superior grounds as compared to the question that opened this thread, which was:

What is the best way to explain to a secular person why homosexuality is sinful?

Truth is, I cannot answer this question, because I do not yet know the answer to my own question, quoted above. So I must clarify: The real question, FOR ME, is: how does the expression of one's homosexuality prevent theosis. I frame my question as such because I do not have the agenda of explaining to secular people why homosexuality is sinful. My agenda is merely to enhance my own understanding of human sexuality and it's affects upon one's relationship with God. Until I understand this thoroughly, for myself, I would not venture to explain to anyone, secular or religious, why homosexuality is inherently wrong.

 

[rusmeister]

Please forgive my arrogance in presenting my own question as if it was based upon superior grounds as compared to the question that opened this thread, which was:

What is the best way to explain to a secular person why homosexuality is sinful?

Truth is, I cannot answer this question, because I do not yet know the answer to my own question, quoted above. So I must clarify: The real question, FOR ME, is: how does the expression of one's homosexuality prevent theosis. I frame my question as such because I do not have the agenda of explaining to secular people why homosexuality is sinful. My agenda is merely to enhance my own understanding of human sexuality and it's affects upon one's relationship with God. Until I understand this thoroughly, for myself, I would not venture to explain to anyone, secular or religious, why homosexuality is inherently wrong.

Your question is not ignored, TF. I just wrote an involved response on my iPad, only to have the browser crash as I was trying to paste the last link and lose everything.
Anyone who's spent a half an hour typing knows how annoying that can be.

I don't have time for a best response now. But I will try to offer this: Our language is wrong and not Orthodox. As soon as we say "one's homosexuality" (or "orientation") we have already fallen into the trap of falsehood and misleading language. If we speak of "suffering from same-sex attraction" our language is much more Orthodox and therefore reflective of truth.

You cannot understand the abnormal until you understand the normal. So I recommend this from OCA and Fr Tom Hopko:
OCA - The Orthodox Faith - Sexuality, Marriage and Family
It should become clear how the same-sex erotic relationship is incompatible with that.

Jedi's link is very good at dealing with the secular understandings; in addition, I found a 90-year old booklet by GK Chesterton on divorce to be extremely helpful in understanding marriage in general and how it has gone wrong, and saw its application to all other abnormal notions of marriage and sex:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/divorce.txt

I apologize for the curtness of my post!

 

[truefiction1]

Thank you, Rus, for the giving of your time and attention in responding to my question. I am working on reading through the links you've pointed out and my plan is to provide feedback on these when I've finished analyzing them. Truthfully, however, I'm getting the feeling that in order to handle this particular issue comprehensively and responsibly, one would find it necessary to perform exhaustive research and write an entire book on it, given the complexity of the opposing view points or perspectives which come to us from the revelations of the various disciplines of human science, mostly from the sciences of psychology, social psychology, cultural anthropology, and genetics.

Surely we, as Orthodox Christians have nothing to fear in an open minded analysis of the findings and perspectives of science, nor in the understanding of their un-Orthodox terminology (which you have easily indicated the error of above). If our faith is true, and we know that it is through direct, personal experience of our God through our act of repentance, then the findings of science on matters such as this will not serve to disprove our position, but rather, they will affirm it. The problem, as I see it, in explaining to modern society why homosexuality is a bad thing, is that when we present arguments from a purely Theological perspective, our viewpoints are simply "written off" by all of those (and there are many) who have already written us off as being simple, narrow minded, uneducated idiots whose archaic and primitive beliefs and notions have no place in the modern "enlightened" world. This is why I think that an interdisciplinary approach to this matter, ending with a conclusion that affirms the teachings of Orthodoxy, could be a valuable aide in helping those outside the faith to eventually find and embrace it. This might help to explain why it is I sometimes use secular terminology, for which I now apologize, in my Orthodox posts.

Again, I greatly appreciate your desire and willingness to interact with me on this topic. Take care, and we'll talk again, God willing.

 

[JediMobius]

If our faith is true... then the findings of science on matters such as this will not serve to disprove our position, but rather, they will affirm it. The problem, as I see it, in explaining to modern society why homosexuality is a bad thing, is that when we present arguments from a purely Theological perspective, our viewpoints are simply "written off" by all of those (and there are many) who have already written us off as being simple, narrow minded, uneducated idiots whose archaic and primitive beliefs and notions have no place in the modern "enlightened" world.

The real problem, I think, is confirmation bias and other phenomena related to cognitive dissonance. Most people already have their beliefs, and subconsciously do all sorts of things to guard those beliefs against contradiction, rather than evaluate these beliefs rationally. Of course, since our faith gives us more than a subjective moral mindset, we know there's something wrong with a scientific viewpoint that homosexuality is natural. However, the flaws in these and similar findings tend to be with the presuppositions and other cognitive biases of the scientist, not his field. After all, science can only study God's creation, so the evidence can only ultimately point to what God has told us is true.

 

[MariaRegina]

The trouble with many social scientists is that they will come up with a thesis and then sift out any information they can to prove their thesis while overlooking the contrary. Thus they abuse the scientific method.

I have seen users from CF come here with innocent minds, go to college where they study the "social sciences," and then come back to CF with arrogant minds that are filled with heterodox teachings.

God is not in their equation.

On the other hand, I have known some wonderful Christian psychiatrists who have changed their practice to that of endocrinology or another medical field because they no longer agree with the anti-Christian and drug pushing agenda of the APA and other medical associations.

 

[JediMobius]

What MariaRegina said:
Confirmation Bias
Experimenter's Bias

 

[truefiction1]

The real problem, I think, is confirmation bias and other phenomena related to cognitive dissonance. Most people already have their beliefs, and subconsciously do all sorts of things to guard those beliefs against contradiction, rather than evaluate these beliefs rationally. Of course, since our faith gives us more than a subjective moral mindset, we know there's something wrong with a scientific viewpoint that homosexuality is natural. However, the flaws in these and similar findings tend to be with the presuppositions and other cognitive biases of the scientist, not his field. After all, science can only study God's creation, so the evidence can only ultimately point to what God has told us is true.

Very well said!