www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Same-Sex Marriage: How Did We Get Here? And Where Are We Going?

Caesar doesn't own the copyright to the term "marriage." Let Caesar create (or rather invent) a new word, or rather, use the new word it already invented:"civil union."

There have been many stages down this slope: First, the acceptance and "normalization" of aritficial birth control; second, the acceptance and "normalization" of not only divorce but remarriage after divorce; and now....

In the even more tragic case of the Western churches of the Reformation all of these sins have been accepted first among the laity, but in short order also among the clergy.

Kyrie Eleison.

I may have posted this previously in another discussion. If so, pardon the redundancy:

"But the practical result of this principle is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.

Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is “ipso facto” non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.

From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into position, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and make them skillful in combating it." (pp. 195-196)

From: “THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION AND ITS THEOLOGY as represented in the Augsburg Confession and in the history and literature of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” by Charles P. Krauth, D.D. (1871). [Note date]

The first time I ever encountered the "LGBT" acronym, I thought it was some kind of sandwich. Boy, did I ever have a lot to learn.

Actually, I am one of the most acute critics of the gay/lesbian movement, as my gay acquaintances would tell you. My message to them has been primarily, "You folks are your own worst enemies." I have cited to them the vulgar flamboyance of their "pride" parades and similar public self-manifestations on many occasions.

They heard from me that if y'all want acceptance, tone down your outward self-expressions and re-join the rest of the human race. If you want "equality' you're gonna have to earn it be behaving publically and privately in ways that don't frighten and alienate the mainstream society.

Some have agreed with me but obviously, many haven't. Like so many minority group members, quite a few of them are unbelievably immature and revel in shocking the general public, rather than seeking common ground. Then there is the heatbreaking prevelance of mood disorders in their midst, which more often than not lead to attempts at self-medication by alcohol and/or illicit and dangerous drugs.Those frequently and tragically lead to some really spectacular self-destructive activities from which reason and sound judgement have fled.

The fact remains that they are our brothers and sisters (albeit often scary ones) and our job, IMO, is first to perceive them as such and tone down our proclivities to condemn them for behaviours which are not only contrary to the Gospel but also mysterious and mystifying.

A question: what would you do; how would you react if one of your children or other beloved person "came out" as gay or lesbian? I pose this not to get an answer but as food for thought.

And as to that little admonition to "love the sinner but hate the sin": I think that ain't nothin' but an excuse for self-righteous intolerance. Why? Because there is no such thing as sin in the abstract. It's always committed by individuals. So really, it should go, "I hate YOUR sin and I also hate YOU." And that's how it's usually perceived; and, I fear, meant.

We're daring to address issues which, as I said, are mysterious and ultimately only God can figure it out.

By the way: do any of you actually know and interact with any "out" gay/lesbian people? Got any "out" or "closeted" gay/lesbian relatives? If so, how's that going? Do you think they truly believe you love them and respect them? Do you try to evengelise them indirectly? Do you pray for them by name (even if through gritted teeth), as I admit I feebly pray for some of them? Ever had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (oops, I meant Divine Liturgy) offered for them? If not, why not? What would it hurt? Ever light candles in church for their intentions? Ever pray for the departed souls of the ones who have died? Do you think of them AT ALL when you pray?

"Grant, O Lord, that I may see my own sins and not judge my neighbour, for You are blessed unto ages of ages."

Okay, with this new preface, I can see better where you're coming from. But my response is still unchanged...they are welcome in the Church but, like everyone else, they have to abide, as best as possible, by the rules, commandments, and Tradition. Yes, we are all sinners, but no one has a license to thumb his nose at our discipleship.


This is a question that can't be answered in advance; there are too many variables, to theoretical, and its unfair to pigeonhole an answer. Its like a pro-abort "journalist" asking a pro-life candidate what he would do if his daughter had an abortion. Its a horrible lack of intelligence. It's like asking what would you do if your family member killed someone...or got divorced....or committed adultery...or was arrested for molestation...or...the list goes on of potential but unlikely situations.



My response is a lot of "yesses" to these questions. As I also know people who have had, or strongly suspect has had abortions. I don't hate them; quite the opposite, and I pray often for them. This is what the LGBT community doesn't realize. They are so full of hate and intolerance that they feel everyone else feels the same, as you alluded to in your opening paragraphs.

May God have mercy on us all.

Just a note on your timeline (although, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't believe in Humanae Vitae, and am divorced):

No fault divorce, and the redefinition of marriage it requires, goes back to the 19th century in the English speaking world. Prior to that, a divorce required a special act of the legislature. With the courts assuming the power to dissolve marriages by legislative grant, the foundation of the divorce mill was erected. This was already a problem by 1934 (those who blame "artificial contraception" usually date that to 1930, though that time line is off as well), when Wallace Simpson put the issue at the forefront of the world stage.

I remember someone tracing the beginnings of the world that insists on its rights, while forgetting its responsibilities (an attitude gay marriage embodies), back to Edward VIII's abdication of his duty to "marry the woman [he] loved."

The other night I watched the old "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing," and was reminded of its acceptance of divorce as the resolution of a plot conflict. That was back in 1955, but earlier examples can easily been found, but it shows its title as false advertising-adultery has no splendor. This deus, or rather diabolus, ex machina reveals a mentality when an inconvenient marriage can be sacrificed in the interest of some alleged higher good, usually mislabeled love, more accurately called "self-gratification."

The decriminalization of adultery and its acceptance, the acceptance of cohabitation, the doing away of the stigma of illegitimacy, the abuse of contraception....these are all just symptoms of the disease that kill off marriage and make gay "marriage" possible.

LOL. Yes, note the date, when Ultramontanism had reached "its natural end."

'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation. "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

So, we are to reduce individuals to their sin? I know the sinner often does, Lossky calling that a being trying to not exist, but the Church is called to something better.

Gay marriage calls for good old fashioned hot intolerance:no acceptance, no recognition, no approval. No counsel, no command, no consent, no provocation, no praise, no concealment, no partaking, no silence, no defense.

When the first gay "couple" were "married," they were asked if they would accept civil union. "No," they insisted "we need this as marriage says that society accepts us as a couple." (btw, they had been together about a decade or two, but "divorced" within a year, with orders of protection and all). Beyond the issue of seeking validation outside your self (as you correctly state, the LGBT have a prevalence of psych disorders, beyond same sex attraction), she also raised the issue of public policy, thereby admitting that it is not her own private affair. IOW, it's our business.

"We're daring to address issues which, as I said, are mysterious and ultimately only God can figure it out." God has not been silent on this issue. We cannot act pretending that He has.

Yes to all of the above. So what's your point?

Personally, I don't have an "ick" factor. Gays, however, have a problem with me simply by the fact that I don't accept their relationships as the equal of marriage. My heterosexual cohabitating friends don't have the same problem, though they know I don't accept their domestic arrangement as the equal of marriage either.

"Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

Btw, there is a lot of rumblings going on in the Black Churches over the announcement last week. It is interesting that those ministers who are trying to prop up the line that this is an issue of civil rights, are at a loss to explain why we can't decriminalize and recognize polygamy. A few have tried by saying that President Obama has defined the limit, and has not spoken on polygamy (his father, btw, was a polygamist and a bigamist). Oh? has Pastor Aeternus been amended to the US Constitution, Article II?

I forgot to add, gay "marriage" seeks to redefine marriage in more ways than one, redefining monogamy as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1

When they speak of "marriage" its not the same as our thoughts. Marriage to half of them means financial bennies and shock value.

Sadly, I think this is just one more step in the social re-engineering that got started in the 1960s. The next step will be for the people who want polygamous marriages recognized. Then lowering the age of consent for children (we've read of two cases in our newspaper here yesterday featuring a 23-year-old woman with a 14-year-old boy and a 27-year-old teacher with his 15-year-old male student; sure that everyone can list many more).

When everything is considered, all standards in society that form its foundation are arbitrary to someone and with the mistaken idea that "tolerance" should include everything imaginable, everything must some day become possible.

Bob

To be fair, I suspect that nearly the same thing could be said of heterosexual marriages: To half of us it's about financial benefits and social status. The number of couples entering marriage with a truly sacramental approach is very small indeed.

Oh, the social engineering goes further back, at least to the turn of the previous century. In fact, social engineering is something that the "enlightenment" and its fruit, the French Revolution, unleashed on us.