Lee,
Thank you for your comments. You raise many issues, and unfortunately I only have time to address a few of the comments you made. I hope that other readers will be willing to also address your remarks.
1) Concerning the science. The American Psychological Association as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the American Medical Association have all stated that there are a variety of factors that impact a person’s sexuality. The most recent literature (from the APA) states that sexual orientation is not a choice and is shaped at an early age. Evidence suggests that homosexuals, and in particular male homosexuals, cannot change their sexual orientation. Biological, including genetic, or inborn hormonal factors play a significant role in orientation. (See APA 2010 report). Of course, scientists have not yet found a “gay gene” which may or may not ever be found. There is an excellent article from the American Academy of Pediatrics – a clinical report – on Sexual Orientation and Adolescents concerning the nature vs. nurture argument. A simple Wikipedia search on homosexuality will bring forth the relevant footnotes and bibliography on the subject. There is an article in GeneWatch journal from 2011 that gives a full history of the search for the Gay Gene (Volume 24 Number 6).
2) Concerning canon law. I must say that your argument confounds me. To argue that the vast majority of canon laws, from either the Ecumenical or Local Councils are valid, or even valid on paper while not practiced, is a kin to arguing that the laws in the US prohibiting spitting on the sidewalk or not allowing African Americans and women to vote. I understand the spirit of the laws, but in numerous instances they must be looked at again, debated and updated. Just to give one example. The canons are clear about the date for the celebration of Pascha. This is broken by the Church of Finland. The Church of Finland has broken this canon for decades, without any rebuking or consequences from the other Orthodox churches. Your argument for why there are numerous bishops in each city does not convince me. This is wrong according to canon law – designed to assure against false teachings. The Church needs to re-visit this law, in light of the church outside of traditional Orthodox countries, in light of immigration patterns, in light of the breakup of Church-States relationships etc. I can use the same argument about re-visiting, reviewing and updating in light of medical or scientific information or societal changes, for the canons prohibiting women from communion during menstruation or the prohibition of going to the theater or having a Jewish doctor or not ordaining a man because he has only nine fingers….The bishops continuously break these laws themselves, so can they claim to be in charge of them? Or how can the faithful continue to trust that they care about them?
3) Your comments about heterosexuality. Sexual desire was not only given for procreation otherwise the church would not sanction the marriages of older couples. Union with a spouse can take place between people of the same sex. Alluding to your later comment about having “any urge” – my husband of almost 15 years is not an urge, but one half of a committed, loving relationship in the fullest understanding. You say that if you lost your wife, you would abstain from relations. But you are asking us, gay people, to never have a spouse. There is a significant difference between losing a spouse and then abstaining, and having been called to married life, even with a person of the same-sex, and never being allowed to marry.
Finally, your comment questioning if “God messes up”. I do not believe that God messes up. However, take an afternoon and roam the halls of a children’s hospital or spend an evening in a lock down unit of a hospital for the mentally handicapped, both of which I have done as a pastor, and then tell me that there is a one size fits all rule of law and a single understanding of God’s creation.
Andriy

First off, thanks for your response. The thing I am most interested in is where you are coming from on the scientific level because you quote this often and I know little about it. I emailed you outside of this discussion a while back, hoping to have a genuine and open conversation about all of this and hear where you are coming from (to the site’s Yahool).

To comment on your response, I have been taught a much different perspective on how to handle the canons as well as what it means for the orthodox church to have a formal stance on an issue.

The orthodox church has had times where the majority of the church believed in heresy; however, this clearly does not mean the heresy was true. This was the case with the Arian heresy and was the purpose of the ecumenical councils, to work these things out in community. This does not mean that if you could poll the orthodox in the world, the popular vote would determine truth. There were times where only one or two bishops held to the truth and, eventually, by the Holy Spirit, brought this to light for the Church to see (for example, St. Nicholas at Nicea).

When looking at the question “is homosexuality dealt with in the canons or formal teachings of the church?” (and not just a popularity vote), we can clearly look and ask if the councils touched on this. The councils give guidance through canons to excommunicate or prescribe penance when certain harmful/sinful things are done by the faithful, in order to guide and chastise us towards holiness and union with God. When we see a canon (even if we are to break it via economia) we can still ask “what is the basis of and reason for this canon”? To say that we are breaking one canon in NY and therefore that we should throw all canons out the window is a very unorthodox approach. What is the point of having one bishop in a city? The interpreters of the canons historically say this is for order and because he is the presence of Christ to look over the distribution of the Eucharist in that area. This has been broken many times in history during the evangelization of new areas by multiple other orthodox Churches and the goal has always been to get the new area to a canonical state in a healthy way. Just because it gets broken does not mean it has no basis and is worthless.

When asking why the Church excommunicates and penances those who commit homosexual actions, what conclusions can we come to? (note that this has nothing to do with whether or not someone feels homosexual temptations) The only two conclusions I can see are 1) the church was wrong, shouldn’t have dealt with the subject, and did not know enough about science or 2) homosexual actions are degrading and harmful to those who partake of them and this canon is for their benefit (and the benefit of all). If you are claiming the church simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about with this subject, this is not at all the same reasoning for why the church breaks other canons (i.e. multiple bishops or going to a Jewish doctor).

When you get to the basis of this discussion in regards to the canons, you simply want to throw the canons out the window and pick and choose the ones you feel are appropriate, placing yourself as the supreme authority. The church, on the other hand leaves the canons in the hands of the bishops to implement BUT learns from them what we “should” be doing in an ideal world, still holding to the fact that canons we break continue to authoritatively teach us truths.

One note about heterosexuality… I do not feel that “being heterosexual” is something that defines me as an image bearer of God. God has given me sexual parts that show me to be male; how I feel about being male does not really change this. He has created sexual desire that is to be used for procreation and union between a spouse. However, if I lost the ability to have my wife sexually, I would be asked by Christ through the Church to abstain. This would not change who I am although it would be a heavy burden to bear. I have indeed had to bear it at points of life and I can agree that it is not easy.

To say that God did not make you this way is not to say that God really made you heterosexual and you’re screwing it up. It’s just to say that our person-hood is much deeper than sexual desires. I do understand that God made you as a male image bearer of Christ and he has indeed allowed you to have homosexual urges and passions. He does not, however, create these passions and place them within you. He has created mankind, male and female and designed us with compatible sexual parts, but the passions and urges are a part of our fallen humanity and can be used for good and creating union and life when channeled in a natural way.

I am in no way claiming that you can just “choose” to be attracted to a woman as some trivialize this issue down to. This is not an easy or simple issue and our passions run deeper than simple choice, but to say that any urge I get is clearly one that God gives me is to give no credit to the fact that many of the voices in our head can be demonic or even simply fleshly. The question we should be asking first is do homosexual actions really hurt/degrade those who partake of them. It seems you are lumping me in with most right wing that very much trivialize the “solutions” to this issue, but I am in no way suggesting simple solutions but want to first deal with clarifying what is really true.

A quick note to all on the contentiousness that can come from this subject:
I do not mean to pass judgement on anyone who has these urges and passions. I do currently disagree with your conclusions and would like to continue to understand your perspective and view point in a respectful discussion. I understand that you think I’m theologically wrong and I believe the same about you, but if I’m right, this does not make me any better of a person than you and I give total benefit of the doubt that you are not doing any of this with a malicious heart but simply might be uninformed of the truth. I trust you can look at me the same way and see that I simply might be uninformed (assuming you all are correct). I sincerely wish you the best and only hope to be helpful here by discussing what the Church’s true stance is. I hope you can at least agree that “if homosexuality really is harmful, it would not be good to encourage it” and see that I come with a heart to help (even if you think I’m stupid and uneducated).

Can we please discuss the specifics of the scientific issues?It seems this is what I’m uneducated on and is the sole thing that is claimed to justify the feelings of the LGBT.

Other questions I would ask. What makes me white? Is it me feeling white, or is it just a fact we can see by a simple observation. Why am I male? Is it because of how God created/formed me? Why would me feeling female change this? Why is this different from feeling black or hispanic? I say this to make a point that much of this discussion leans towards LG issues, but the B and T don’t make much sense to me. I can understand having different sexual urges/passions, but believing we should have been given different sexual parts seems to blame God for messing up. Please explain why you all feel these are important if you disagree. Thanks!

Best,

Lee

Lee,
Thank you for your email and intense interest in the subject of Orthodoxy and LGB issues. There is much to comment on and I will be selective.
You state that you are supportive of the Orthodox Church’s stance on sexuality. I would challenge that statement in that I am not sure that the Church has a pastoral or comprehensive definitive statement on sexuality. There are numerous views expressed by bishops and priests in print, in homilies, as well as in private conversations that would show the range of these views. 
This website receives thousands of emails from LGBT Orthodox Christians, their family members, as well as those seeking entrance into the Church. There is not a single monolithic statement or approach. For example, one woman was accepted into the Church along with her wife and their adopted children. One transsexual woman was deprived of the sacraments when she spoke with her priest. The priest has no idea what a transsexual was and would agree to give her communion as long as she did not wear a dress to Church. One father sought advice from his pastor when his son came out. The priest had suggested that a memorial service be chanted for his son. The father stopped going to Church.

As you state the Church Fathers do not get everything 100% right all of the time. They were and are glorified and proclaimed for their holiness not their knowledge of neurobiology, psychology or chemistry. It would be foolish to assume that Saint John Chrysostom in the 4th century would know about DNA, genetics or neuroscience.

Also, you mention the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. As I am sure you know there are numerous canons not being followed and if they were, we would all be excommunicated. Everything from the prohibition of having two Orthodox bishops in  one city (how many Orthodox bishops are ruling bishops of New York City for example) to the prohibition of seeing a Jewish doctor. Therefore to see the canons as the final ruling in issues of human sexuality would not be appropriate.

Also, your comment that I and millions of other LGBT individuals are “buried with the temptations of homosexual intercourse or any other type of sin” deserves a comment. I would ask you if you are “buried with the temptations of heterosexual intercourse”? If so, then we stand in agreement. However, the love and desire that I feel for my husband of over a decade, is a blessed love. There is faulty temptation in the heteronormative world to condemn LGBT individuals for simply being who God created us to be. This attitude is full of great pride.

Finally, you may believe that saying God made me this way is a lie, I would have to ask you, how did God make you? How else can you explain your attraction to women? Was it a choice? If it was a choice, can you choose to be sexually attracted to a man? This is folly. Just as I can only describe my calling to the priesthood as a feeling instilled in me from Christ Himself, I can only describe the love and attraction that I have for my husband as a feeling instilled in me from Christ Himself.

In conclusion, you ask for forgiveness for any offense and yet state that I am teaching lies. I am not sure how this logic works, but I will accept your asking for forgiveness.

My prayer is that God will lead you to a greater understanding of the beautiful differences in the world that He created. That thousands of types of individuals are not sin, but part of the beauty of His creation.

I bid you peace,
Andriy

First, I would like to say that God indeed loves all of you with a deep, redemptive, powerful, “I will die for you” love that he showed on the cross and in his resurrection. If you feel buried with the temptations of homosexual intercourse or any other type of sin, God can resurrect you to righteousness and loves you deeply.

Some of the main arguments:

Slavery – many people say because Christians have had slaves this means that they make mistakes and that their opposition to homosexual actions are also a mistake. Unfortunately, this argument has a few holes in it. First, the Church has never been “pro slavery”. If you look into the writings of the Fathers, some of them mention slavery as a necessary evil, but they still have a low view of it. Secondly, they never condone or (God forbid) glorify it in a council or formal way. Last on this subject, the saints of old have always put greater emphasis on HOW we are loving one another EVEN IN THE MIDST OF A CULTURAL EVIL (like slavery) – Paul was more concerned with the fact that if someone was a slave owner, that they treat their slave like Christ would treat us. This shows simply that the Fathers recognized we are aliens in this world, so whether slave or free, what was MORE important (not that ending slavery is not important) was repenting and partaking of God’s kingdom. The church undoubtedly rejoices that slavery is no longer a part of American culture. To say that the Church changed Her view here is wrong. Furthermore, using this as a point int he LGBT agenda is comparing something the church “permits” and nurtures towards at least a loving relationship (when culture is unfortunately aligned this way, slavery) to something the Church has unanimously stated is against the natural laws God has given us and is a part of the sickness we’ve fallen into. To encourage someone to go deeper into this sickness does not help anybody. To encourage someone to “come out”, however, and face the truth of what is really going on inside of them, can indeed be helpful, but it must be handled in a way that leads all to truth that homosexual acts are unnatural and harmful.

Divorce – to say that Christ didn’t allow divorce but the Church does and assume the Church should do the same with homosexual marriage also has a few holes in it. First, Christ does allow for divorce under certain circumstances (adultery, esp) and the Church quickly clarified that his example also applies to a few other stances (abuse and the like). These things were unanimously clarified by the Church and are treated with pastoral care. The struggle of homosexuality should also be treated with pastoral care, but that is not to say that because of this we can say … “see divorce can be a good thing”.. In no way… a second marriage is permitted as ECONOMY/CONCESSION (but is not Christian/Orthodox) to allow room for people who have weakness/need when they have been wronged in marriage or ruined their marriage and have repented. Even then, the church does not allow for a 4th marriage ever, and even the 2nd and 3rd are treated with SERIOUS REPENTANCE (they even have a whole different service!!). Conclusion here – “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel. Divorce and homosexual actions should both be treated with pastoral love and care that leads to right and natural relationship and recognizes both as sinful in need of God’s help. Glorifying either of these as “good” does not help anyone.

Infertile relationships – The church (especially through the beloved St. John Chrysostom) has confirmed that a MAJOR role of marriage is undoubtedly procreation. To take this away is to make marriage something less than God intended. However, he clearly proclaims that Paul makes clear the other reason for marriage – help in chastity and union of two people in a natural, God given way. Because the Church confirms there are reasons for marriage other than procreation, the Fathers do agree that it would be better to grow into an abstinent state after menopause. This is also seen as the reason men naturally begin to lose their sexual drive with old age. Homosexuality does not treat procreation as a possible role of marriage and does not treat infertility as a part of the fall. These are Orthodox concepts that cannot be taken away from God’s natural creation.

Monogamous homosexuality – To say that the important thing is simply a commitment to 1 other person is to have a low view of marriage. Marriage fulfills laws of nature (heterosexual), creates life (children), and glorifies God with gender roles being fulfilled with humility. Any marriage outside the Orthodox Church sacrament is less than Christian, but some of them are at least “natural” and “not sinful” in this way; these have the ability to be blessed and become fully Christian in as much as each party begins to partake of the sacraments and life of Christ with humility (just getting your marriage blessed does not mean it will stay Christian, this is an active walk in the Church). The problem with this argument is that it does not account for the full view of marriage.

“God made you this way” – Unfortunately, this is a lie that teaches people to define themselves by their struggles. You are MORE than your struggles and if you have homosexual tendencies, this is only a large temptation and heavy burden to bear, so I feel for you and ask for you to pray for me in my struggles as well (depression, anger, lust, pride, impatience, etc…) I might be an angry person sometimes, but my sinful anger does not define my person-hood; it needs to be purged out with divine fire so that I may become fully human in a natural way, as God created and intended for me.

Please forgive me for any offense this might create. I love you and don’t mean to offend you but I believe that encouraging sin as “good” is not helpful to anyone.

With love and hope for all,

Lee

Where did you hear that St. Joseph was only the Theotokos’ fiancé? Based on what I’ve learned, he was her husband. Just because they didn’t consummate the marriage doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I think their example is relevant to demonstrate how the focus of marriage is not sex, but faith and love. Also, being gay does not reject outright motherhood or virginity, any more than being straight does.

May the grace of God be with you.

– A Questioning Christian

You cited one example of a child who was abused by a lesbian couple. That does not suggest that most gay parents abuse their children. I could also link to many incidents where heterosexual parents have abused their children. That does not mean most heterosexual parents are bad parents either.

Athanasios,

You included alot in your response, so I am not sure I will be able to address everything. I will do my best to respond to your most significant points. Nevertheless, I apologize for the length of my response.

A. On gay parenthood

Studies on lesbian mothers vs gay fathers are not “apples to honeybees.” Lesbians are gay women, so studies on them are important to determining the effect of gay parents on children. If your stance is that heterosexual couples are better on average at raising children than gay couples, then studies on lesbian couples refute that position because no significant differences are observed in children raised by lesbian parents compared to heterosexual parents. While more studies have been done on lesbian mothers compared to gay fathers, as I stated previously studies have been done on gay fathers and those studies did not find significant differences in children raised by gay fathers compared to heterosexual parents. You also state that I validate the APA with other “clubs” which have the same “culture” while ignoring the rest of the world on the topic. The only “culture” that those organizations share is a commitment to facts and the scientific method. You are free to provide me with an example of a scientific organization elsewhere in the world that disagrees with the APA on this issue. However, I am not aware of any.

You quote the “What We Know” link stating that many of the studies have small sample sizes and argue that they are not representative enough and represent a poor quality of data. However, if you read further, you will see that the author addresses your criticism:

“Some critics of the LGB parenting research object to the small, non-random sampling methods known as “convenience sampling” that researchers in the field often use to gather their data. Yet within the field, convenience sampling is not considered a methodological flaw, but simply a limitation to generalizability. Within sociology and especially psychology, small, qualitative and longitudinal studies are considered to have certain advantages over probability studies: Such data can allow investigators to notice and analyze subtleties and texture in child development over time that large, statistical studies often miss. It is important to note, moreover, that some of the research that finds no differences among children with same-sex parents does use large, representative data. A 2010 study by Stanford researcher Michael Rosenfeld used census data to examine the school advancement of 3,500 children with same-sex parents, finding no significant differences between households headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents when controlling for family background. Another study drew on nationally representative, longitudinal data using a sampling pool of over 20,000 children, of which 158 lived in a same-sex parent household. Controlling for family disruptions, those children showed no significant differences from their peers in school outcomes.” (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/)

As you can see, these types of studies are not an example of sloppy or biased research, but provide distinct advantages to understanding child development. You also suggest that the conclusions found in these studies are the result of bias due to either funding from pro-LGBT groups or publicity rather than an objective assessment of the evidence. Let’s please not delve into conspiracy theory territory. There is no evidence that these groups have fabricated or rigged studies just to cater to funding organizations. This is the same kind of argument peddled by climate change denialists, anti-vaxxers, GMO alarmists, creationists, and other anti-science groups and such arguments are just as fallacious in this context.

Regarding your statement about adoption, I never suggested that you or any parents should be forced to give up your children for adoption to gay couples. If, according to your scenario, your children were orphaned, of course your last wishes should be the determining factor as to who should get to raise your children. However, it is not “fascism” or “racist discrimination (sexual orientation is not a race) against heterosexuals” to suggest that LGBT couples have the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples. Just because they cannot procreate doesn’t mean they should be denied the right to parenthood, any more than an infertile heterosexual couple should.

You also state that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. With all due respect, that is a homophobic myth and slanderous to LGBT individuals. There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. Bringing up NAMBLA also does not support your stereotype, as all major LGBT advocacy groups have condemned NAMBLA and none of them advocate for pedophilia. This disgusting myth has been used by many to excuse persecution and violence against LGBT people. Please keep that in mind before judging others of having blood-stained hands (and also remember the words of Our Lord in Matthew 7:3-5).

B. On LGBT “gay marriage”

You seem to be fixated on sex acts regarding LGBT people, specifically sodomy (by which I assume you mean anal sex), calling it the core of gay relationships. However, sodomy is not the only way gay people can express sexual intimacy (and many heterosexual couples also engage in sodomy). For example, lesbians do not perform anal sex. I don’t want to focus too much on this topic, as I am not interested in gay sex acts, but it is untrue to suggest that sodomy is at the core of gay relationships. Therefore, one can still be opposed to sodomy in relationships (gay or straight) without condemning gay relationships as a whole. You also suggest that sex is so important to a marriage that, without it, it would only be deemed a “friendship.” However, I assume you would not consider the marriage of St. Joseph and Virgin Mary, which according to tradition involved no sex, to be merely a “friendship.” The Holy Family is in fact the best example of how marriage is about much more than sex. It was faith and love centered in Jesus Christ that was at the core of St. Joseph’s and the Theotokos’ marriage, not sex.

You state that the Church has ruled against sodomy, but as I said earlier, that is not equivalent to faithful gay relationships. Also, your examples from the Scriptures do not directly address the issue homosexuality but are instead affirmations of heterosexual relationships and condemnations of inappropriate sex acts which do not relate to faithful gay relationships. I will again point out that neither the Creeds nor the Ecumenical Councils, which define the essentials of Christian theology, address the issue of gay relationships.

You also condemn gay pride, pointing out that Christian icons and symbols are desecrated at some gay pride events and arguing that it violates the Christian mandate to practice humility. However, desecration of icons does not happen at most pride events, and it is not meant as disrespect to Jesus, but as protest of the institutional churches which demonize LGBT people and often collude with state officials to pass laws discriminating against them. Also, gay pride “coming out” is not about violating humility but is instead about unapologetically affirming one’s identity in spite of the backlash that might follow, similar to Christian martyrs who affirmed their faith in Christ despite the persecution they knew they would face.

C. On “normality”

You claim that the biological basis for sexual orientation is “tons of books full of confusion.” While research is still ongoing in this field, there is evidence that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation, as seen in the study I linked to in my previous post for example. Also, sexual orientation is not an unknown concept. The APA defines it as: “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.” There have been numerous studies on sexual orientation, so we have a pretty clear understanding about what it is, and that it is not something people can change of their own free will. Your statement referring to anal sex is, again, irrelevant to this issue. I have also not claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder, because one’s sexual orientation is not a disorder to be cured, which is why gay conversion therapies have failed and caused mental and emotional harm.

Also, you don’t need to refer to me as a Papist. I have recently left the Roman Catholic Church due to theological disagreements around issues like papal infallibility.

May the grace of God be with you.

– A Questioning Christian (formerly A Questioning Catholic)

And a last final story for bedtime thinking.

Once upon a time, some dark ugly guy threw a stone at your head. You get dizzy, your vision is blurred, you see the blood, you feel numb, then the pain, then some memory loss about how it all happened. You get a bit more conscious, you look down and see what hurt you; it’s a stone. You cry, and then you rage. You see others that did not get hit from the same stone. Some of them, impolite and gross savages, laugh at you. You will call for anti-stone and anti-laugh laws, you will put the stone to jail. You will shout for suffering bullying and discrimination – quite rightfully. You can also run researches with the APA or other fellow institutes to measure the stones. Finally, the stones are natural. The trauma is natural, too. Gravity rules have applied, too. Everything is natural. The stone behaved almost as the rain; subject to gravity and felt when falling on our heads. You feel no-one should bully you anymore. The stone becomes your source of pride. “I have been stone-hit and I am proud for it.” Researchers measured every single thing about the stone, except for the possibility of some ugly guy laughing for throwing the stone and getting away with it.

Athanasios

PS – This time I chose to call you “Papist” instead of “Catholic”, which is a more precise definition of Pope-led Homology. In Orthodox Church, we call our Church “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”.

“No hard feelings” with “you suffer the gay pathos”? Oh my. I wonder if you can hear yourself?
I will no longer engage with you. I will allow you to post comments. If others wish to respond to you, they can, as long as the conversation remains civil and respectful.
Andriy