Proof that Gay Relationships are Wrong

[AureateDawn]

Does anyone have any?

Not trying to start anything - just wondering. Like, any particular canons? Old Testament Bible verses don't count, as those go on to say that eating shellfish is bad right after condemning gays. I know that St. Paul mentions it in the New Testament. However, his understanding was different back then. The gays, so to speak, back then were in pagan temples having orgies. So anything in the Bible doesn't really count as "proof" so to speak...

But what about canons? Even then, it'd be iffy, since the idea of two same-sex people in a loving relationship is relatively a new idea and the Church has not experienced it before (was told this by an abbot before anyone argues). But I'd still be curious on any canons, and any other text in general.

 

[gzt]

What sort of relationship and what sort of "loving"?

 

[gzt]

Before we get into this, I'll note that my main interest is heterosexual relationships, simply because I don't have any experience with homosexual relationships and can't really comment. And in that context I would point out that sexual behavior outside the context of marriage in a heterosexual relationship is wrong. And sexual behavior is far more than just intercourse.

 

[AureateDawn]

Hm. OK, I'll define it: gay people dating, kissing, holding hands... and hopefully eventually marriage/commitment ceremony. No sex til the "honeymoon".

 

[buzuxi02]

In the Orthodox marriage ceremony there isnt much mention of love. Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is frowned upon in Orthodoxy.

 

[AureateDawn]

I don't want to delve too much into marriage in this topic, really, but could you elaborate, buzuxi?

OK how about the definition of a gay relationship is this for the sake of the thread: dating, kissing, holding hands... y'know.... dating. But no sex.

 

[buzuxi02]

Christian morality is strict, masturbation is a sin, even looking upon someone with lust is condemned by Christ. So trying to legitimize homosexual relations really requires a giant leap of faith. Even the same actions concerning heterosexual couples you describe above can be sinful but are not the same. In that heteriosexual couples have the potential to marry, the actions can be legitimized. Within heterosexuals, sexual behavior can cease being sinful or immoral, but the opposite is not true for homosexuality

 

[gzt]

To bring it back to heterosexuals, I think most modern paradigms of dating are wrong-headed. When it's not wrong-headed, well, the explicit telos of dating is marriage - to determine suitability for marriage and then to prepare for marriage - and is done chastely (ie, without sexual behavior, and sexual behavior is far more broad than just intercourse). Most of what goes by the name of dating in this day and age doesn't fit under this. I don't know whether what you described - rather vaguely - is something a heterosexual ought to be engaging in, much less a homosexual. If you define dating as above, then the question is about marriage.

 

[Andrew21091]

I will give you a few verses that are drawn against homosexuality both from the New Testament and from the Fathers:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

St. John Chrysostom writes on the section of Romans as such: "All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases." (4th Homily on Romans) He also writes in the same homily, "The men have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men." Read the whole homily here: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Romans (Chrysostom)

St. Basil the Great writes, "He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62).

From the Didache: "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2).

St. Augustine writes in his Confessions, "Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15)

St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, "Turn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion. Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them." (Letters 1:8-9)

 

[127.0.0.1]

I must admit. The writings of those Saints seem curious to me. It is as if they've absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. If someone must remain celibate for their entire life and not by their choosing, I would think a small amount of sympathy would be called for. Yet these Saints offer none, no sympathy at all, and this leaves me very curious.

St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, "Turn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion. Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them." (Letters 1:8-9)

This piece is by far the most interesting. He seems to be describing a great abuse and he makes no effort to hide his disdain. His last sentence is indeed the most curios of all. It leaves me not at all sure what he means. Certainly the last sentence sounds, to me anyway, like rape. Most men are raped by men (heterosexual men at that), and rape is done for reasons of power and not sexual gratification, which is why his last sentence brings it to my mind. Also, I see here mentions of the concept of effeminization, and I would argue that such an concept is not specific to the LGBT world, as I've seen the same concept applied amongst heterosexual participants of opposite sexes. Furthermore I would add that not all homosexual relationships hold the idea of effeminization as a goal, and ergo seem to excuse themselves from the concepts which are discussed here, leaving the article inconclusive. It is to our frustration that the acts were not described in more detail, that we might better grasp what he's referring to. His denouements are all well and fine, but it seems to me that he's forgotten to explain to his audience (or rather he assumes they already know) what he's pointing at.

At any rate, what with his description of seeing that which to see is a crime in itself, I'm certainly led to believe here that the relationship between persons being described isn't interpersonally oriented.

If you can find another of his works in which he more plainly lists that acts which he refers to here I would be grateful for an opportunity to read it myself. Until then, it looks more to me like rape, perhaps within some sort of religious context. At any rate, if it is rape being discussed, that is not what is being discussed in this thread here.

My understanding of the purpose of being a Christian is to achieve Theosis.
When one is married, the two become one and their journey becomes one of Syntheosis.

If one wanted to prove that homosexual relationships were wrong, one might do so, quite effectively, by showing how a homosexual couple are impaired, presumably by being a homosexual couple, in their journey of Syntheosis.
In short, if one wanted proof, proof could be given by thoroughly showing how having a partner of the same sex hinders one's relationship with God.

 

[Topaz]

Why doesn't the Old Testament count? The shellfish, and such things, were given to us in Acts 10:10-15 as no longer being unclean. Homosexuality was not one of those things. In fact, it was further condemned in the New Testament. What is wrong with homosexuality is it is an act that God never intended, and is sin. To me, asking "what is wrong with it?" is ignoring God's will, and only paying attention to personal desires. The fact it is against God's will is enough to prove that it is wrong, just as stealing, lying, cheating, and all of the other sins the Bible mentions. A person could say the same thing about lying, "what is wrong with it, if it doesn't hurt someone else?" I've heard that same argument over and over again, but sometimes we do not see the results of the sin. We may think it doesn't hurt another, but sometimes the sin gets away from us. It is better just to do as God asks of us, and stop trying to justify it.

 

[Rowan]

I must admit. The writings of those Saints seem curious to me. It is as if they've absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. If someone must remain celibate for their entire life and not by their choosing, I would think a small amount of sympathy would be called for. Yet these Saints offer none, no sympathy at all, and this leaves me very curious.

In this, and other subjects, where the saints have been blunt with no supposed remorse, I try to keep in mind that their lives was just as "three-dimensional" as ours. Just because we have documents from them that only concern themselves with doctrinal teaching, encouraging Christians to practice virtue is more of a pastoral undertaking, and it was taken for granted that it didn't need to be written down, like today.

 

[Gwendolyn]

A note about logic -

I think that it is folly to suggest that homosexual people did not have loving relationships in the past.

Since there were homosexual people in St. Paul's time, it isn't a far stretch to assume that they did have feelings for each other. Humans are drawn into relationship - we can distort things and reduce relationships to mere sexual acts and pleasures, but not everyone does that (and we shouldn't do that - it is sinful). Therefore, saying that NT verses probably don't apply because St. Paul was talking about homosexual orgies doesn't make sense.

It isn't like homosexuality has evolved. Humans have the same emotions and drives now that they had back then.

It's like saying that heterosexuals in St. Paul's time didn't feel romantic affections for each other because they knew that they were expected to produce heirs or something. That doesn't make heterosexuals incapable or unwilling to experience affection and love, does it?

Assuming St. Paul was ignorant of that fact just seems illogical to me.

 

[AureateDawn]

Christian morality is strict, masturbation is a sin, even looking upon someone with lust is condemned by Christ. So trying to legitimize homosexual relations really requires a giant leap of faith. Even the same actions concerning heterosexual couples you describe above can be sinful but are not the same. In that heteriosexual couples have the potential to marry, the actions can be legitimized. Within heterosexuals, sexual behavior can cease being sinful or immoral, but the opposite is not true for homosexuality

How is it, exactly, that the sexual behavior can cease being sinful/immoral? Just to make sure I understand, cause I dunno yet.

I don't know whether what you described - rather vaguely - is something a heterosexual ought to be engaging in, much less a homosexual. If you define dating as above, then the question is about marriage.

Would it be bad for a homosexual couple to have a commitment ceremony to demonstrate their love?

I will give you a few verses that are drawn against homosexuality both from the New Testament and from the Fathers:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

Like I said, the understanding of homosexuality back then was more... gay temple pagan orgies. Further, Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't just about gays - it was about how they were rapists and thieves and other immoral things.

I must admit. The writings of those Saints seem curious to me. It is as if they've absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. If someone must remain celibate for their entire life and not by their choosing, I would think a small amount of sympathy would be called for. Yet these Saints offer none, no sympathy at all, and this leaves me very curious.

I thought the exact same when reading this.

You had an interesting point that I didn't quote regarding syntheosis.

Why doesn't the Old Testament count? The shellfish, and such things, were given to us in Acts 10:10-15 as no longer being unclean. Homosexuality was not one of those things. In fact, it was further condemned in the New Testament. What is wrong with homosexuality is it is an act that God never intended, and is sin. To me, asking "what is wrong with it?" is ignoring God's will, and only paying attention to personal desires. The fact it is against God's will is enough to prove that it is wrong, just as stealing, lying, cheating, and all of the other sins the Bible mentions. A person could say the same thing about lying, "what is wrong with it, if it doesn't hurt someone else?" I've heard that same argument over and over again, but sometimes we do not see the results of the sin. We may think it doesn't hurt another, but sometimes the sin gets away from us. It is better just to do as God asks of us, and stop trying to justify it.

You're trying to compare love to lying, cheating, murder, etc. It's nonsensical. In this you just say that it is against God's will as if that is proof enough by you saying it is against God's will.

In this, and other subjects, where the saints have been blunt with no supposed remorse, I try to keep in mind that their lives was just as "three-dimensional" as ours. Just because we have documents from them that only concern themselves with doctrinal teaching, encouraging Christians to practice virtue is more of a pastoral undertaking, and it was taken for granted that it didn't need to be written down, like today.

Point taken. However, even within modern sermons and books, some amount of sympathy is at least somewhat shown, whereas the quotes show none. It's rather disturbing.

A note about logic -

I think that it is folly to suggest that homosexual people did not have loving relationships in the past.

Since there were homosexual people in St. Paul's time, it isn't a far stretch to assume that they did have feelings for each other. Humans are drawn into relationship - we can distort things and reduce relationships to mere sexual acts and pleasures, but not everyone does that (and we shouldn't do that - it is sinful). Therefore, saying that NT verses probably don't apply because St. Paul was talking about homosexual orgies doesn't make sense.

It isn't like homosexuality has evolved. Humans have the same emotions and drives now that they had back then.

It's like saying that heterosexuals in St. Paul's time didn't feel romantic affections for each other because they knew that they were expected to produce heirs or something. That doesn't make heterosexuals incapable or unwilling to experience affection and love, does it?

Assuming St. Paul was ignorant of that fact just seems illogical to me.

It's not like saying that about heterosexuals at all. I've even read others on this board say the same thing... and an abbot, in fact. The idea of two men or two women entering into a union of love, similar or same as marriage, bonding for life, in a monogamous relationship, and raising a family, is a new situation that the Church has never dealt with. ALL evidence of past homosexual relationship was that dealing solely with power or lust, as opposed to love. That's the difference.

 

[Gwendolyn]

It's not like saying that about heterosexuals at all. I've even read others on this board say the same thing... and an abbot, in fact. The idea of two men or two women entering into a union of love, similar or same as marriage, bonding for life, in a monogamous relationship, and raising a family, is a new situation that the Church has never dealt with. ALL evidence of past homosexual relationship was that dealing solely with power or lust, as opposed to love. That's the difference.

Oh, you're talking about the marriage and family issue.

Earlier in the post you said you didn't want to talk about that.

I was just saying that humans develop romantic feelings for each other regardless of their ability to marry or raise a family - simply not being able to marry wouldn't prevent someone from developing romantic feelings, Justin. So saying that St. Paul had no idea that homosexuals could develop romantic feelings, or something, is what doesn't make sense. Maybe there were homosexual orgies - there were hetero ones too, for the pagans - but that doesn't mean that every homosexual was only lust-driven. Just like every heterosexual wasn't only lust-driven.

 

[Andrew21091]

Like I said, the understanding of homosexuality back then was more... gay temple pagan orgies. Further, Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't just about gays - it was about how they were rapists and thieves and other immoral things.

I really think this is rubbish. They weren't only thinking of these so called temple orgies. The Fathers condemn men leaving the natural use of the woman to go with men. St. Paul didn't say men going off to have orgies but them leaving the woman. One of the major points in marriage is to make a child, two men cannot do this. It is not blessed by God and it cannot be.

You're trying to compare love to lying, cheating, murder, etc. It's nonsensical. In this you just say that it is against God's will as if that is proof enough by you saying it is against God's will.

God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. Two flesh, male and female become one. The two come together and they can bring forth a child into the world. This is what God intended, this is what the Church must, has, and will stand on.

 

[127.0.0.1]

I think that it is folly to suggest that homosexual people did not have loving relationships in the past.
....
Assuming St. Paul was ignorant of that fact just seems illogical to me.

I half agree. Did LGBT people have interpersonal relationships in the past, of course they did; just as they do today. Most likely there were many in Rome who were aware of this. No doubt gays have been around for a long time, many were probably just that same back then as they are today. The only thing I'm not convinced of, is that it was these people who St. Paul, and others, were condemning, what with the talk of defiling young virgin men and effeminization, these things, IMO, do not necessarily indicate a homosexual relationship.

No doubt it's folly, as you say, to presume that the whole ancient homosexual world consisted of temple orgies. In fact if they were temple orgies than I would argue that they might not have even had anything to do with homosexuality at all...in fact I would even go so far as to argue that most the participants, probably weren't even homosexuals. Most likely, the participants of ancient temple orgies, were heterosexuals, who participated for purposes of power and domination and that many others were obliged to participate against their will. This, seems the more likely to me.

One of the major points in marriage is to make a child...God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply...The two come together and they can bring forth a child into the world. This is what God intended, this is what the Church must, has, and will stand on.

As a member of the Orthodox, Childfree community, I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. I think Syntheosis describes marriage better than having kids, since kids can be had for a whole number of reasons, some better than others.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think Christ's silence in the New Testament is proof enough. I mean if He really is the God of the OT Who gave the Law, and He doesn't change His opinion on things, then the fact that He didn't say anything in the NT should be enough to show that it is wrong. He didn't need to say anything because the Jews already knew it was wrong.

yes, the Fathers can sound harsh when it comes to certain things, but saints still do. if you don't believe me, read the life of Elder Cleopa of Romania, or Elder Joseph the Hesychast, both of whom could be very harsh with their spiritual children or pilgrims that came to them. it shouldn't matter how harsh they sound, what matters is if they are right.

and then there is the Love thing. only God defines what love is, because He is love. and in the sexual sense, God has defined physical intimacy as only that between a man and woman within marriage. now I know you said not sexually, but that's what the whole dating thing is about. the hand holding, kissing, hugging, dating, etc is ultimately and ideally to lead one to marriage with another person (and I am not saying that the first person you date is the one you marry), to totally give of oneself to the other, over a lifetime.

 

[jckstraw72]

heres the complete rudder, at the end there is an index of subjects. im almost certain theres homosexuality in there somewhere (my comp wont open it right now otherwise id check) http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgics/The_Rudder_or_Pedalion.pdf

 

[127.0.0.1]

heres the complete rudder, at the end there is an index of subjects. im almost certain theres homosexuality in there somewhere (my comp wont open it right now otherwise id check) http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgics/The_Rudder_or_Pedalion.pdf

Good grief!!! 227.11MB!!!! That's a big .pdf there.