My Opinion on Gay Marriage

[Rev.]

Here's the static. Marriage is a civil issue as it pertains to the government.

I agree.

A church can not be legally forced to marry homosexuals any more than the catholic church can be forced to marry divorcees.

Ah, but this is the long term plan. Once marriage is legal for homosexuals, they will then turn to the churches and attempt to force them to perform weddings. As it is now, churches have been threatened with lawsuits if the Pastor preaches that homosexuality is a sin.

Whether anyone else wants to believe it or not, this IS about church and God. Christians are "narrow-minded bigots" for wanting to say, "Homosexuality is wrong." But the first person who says, "Believing that homosexuality is wrong is wrong" gets cheered and high-fived. Am I the only one who sees this inconsistancy?

 

[Rev.]

And i believe the rights of gays are being violated

Please take this as being sincerely asked...exactly what rights are being violated?

 

[Rev.]

Okidoki...onto post #15...I see no difference between the two covenants BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME. Thank you for that post. It started in Genesis...jews...jesus said it was good...christians. I see completely how it was only right when the Christian god said it is.

I think you missed the point of that post. It was to distinguish between the institution of marriage as established by God and the ceremony of marriage which reflects the traditions and culture of men.

You also have to understand that MY posts are written from a God-centered viewpoint. Someone asks a question and I WILL answer with that theological background. I made that clear up front, so you can keep your implied accusations to yourself. I will not be like any other Christian you have ever met, so if you want to put your attitude away and have an adult conversation, maybe you'll learn something (and I am sure I will too.)

 

[shuamort]

Ah, but this is the long term plan. Once marriage is legal for homosexuals, they will then turn to the churches and attempt to force them to perform weddings.

Got any proof? Seriously. It's legal in Massachusetts, so obviously, according to your theory, that "the long term plan" would have already had at least one lawsuit against a church. Of course, lawsuits against churches on who they marry would never, EVER, force the church's hand to marry against their religion. Let's look back at the Supreme Court Decision of Loving v Virginia which forced all states to recognize miscegenation (mixed race marriage). Many churches were against miscegenation, now how many of those churches were sued (and won against) that forced them to marry mixed race couples. Here's the answer: Zero.

As it is now, churches have been threatened with lawsuits if the Pastor preaches that homosexuality is a sin.

Welcome to the litigious United States, I work for an insurance company and see lawsuits for EVERYTHING. Now. Even if your claim were true, what would be the chances that it would win in the United States? Follow-up question Why is Fred Phelps still around?

Whether anyone else wants to believe it or not, this IS about church and God.

I'm gonna go with not, Ripley. Marriage for YOU is about church and God. Marriage for my parents who got married on the shores of the ocean by a justice of the peace was about love, about a lifelong commitment, and (to a lesser extent) about security when it comes to their future. Luckily, the govenment doesn't regulate marriage anymore than it regulates love. It does, however, regulate contracts. Which, at its base, it is what marriage is.

Christians are "narrow-minded bigots" for wanting to say, "Homosexuality is wrong." But the first person who says, "Believing that homosexuality is wrong is wrong" gets cheered and high-fived. Am I the only one who sees this inconsistancy?

What inconsistency? I'm guessing you're missing a step in there. Like all people who say that "calling homosexuality is wrong is wrong" are also calling Christians "narrow-minded bigots". Such a blanket statement could easily be debunked by the number of homosexuals who are also Christians.

Since we're on the subject, maybe you can offer your opinion on what the actual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was and also what the term arsenokotai should actually be translated as by what it was meant at the time.

 

[Schweddy]

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. But for the sake of being forthcoming: I have been preaching for 12 years, can marry, baptise and administer communion, have one more year to serve as a pastor before I can be ordained...but I am a woman. I hope that won't stand in the way of future discussion.

Absolutely not. I disagree with a woman being a pastor - but that will not detour my thoughts in this thread. Nor will it negate, in my view, anyone's opinion on the topic. I appreciate your openness.

I try to be a completely open person and post what I think. It has gotten me in trouble, but I do my best not to judge. It's the subject I try to refute - not the person. Pardon the expression earlier 'man of the cloth'. I did not be to be insensative to any gender.

The diversity of this community is increadible! Wow.
I still get goosebumps when I think of all the folks here from different backgrounds, lifestyles, and political leanings. This is what quality discussion/debate is all about.

 

[Rev.]

Got any proof? Seriously. It's legal in Massachusetts, so obviously, according to your theory, that "the long term plan" would have already had at least one lawsuit against a church. Of course, lawsuits against churches on who they marry would never, EVER, force the church's hand to marry against their religion. Let's look back at the Supreme Court Decision of Loving v Virginia which forced all states to recognize miscegenation (mixed race marriage). Many churches were against miscegenation, now how many of those churches were sued (and won against) that forced them to marry mixed race couples. Here's the answer: Zero.

Now THAT is very interesting. I didn't know that and it certainly does put a different spin on things. I'll remember that the next time somebody from the Christian Civic League tries to emotionally blackmail me into signing their petition against the gay-rights law. (Which I didn't, BTW).

Why is Fred Phelps still around?

Oh, here I go showing my ignorance again. Who's he?

I'm gonna go with not, Ripley. Marriage for YOU is about church and God.

This time, you are wrong. My roommate in college was a lesbian, and her partner was my best friend. For them, and a lot of the homosexual people they introduced me to, it WAS about God. Funny, we don't hear about homosexuals wanting to get married in Buddhist ceremonies or Muslim ceremonies...either that's because such ceremonies are not publicized OR they are less tolerant of homosexuals than Christians are and nobody dares come out. No, I still hold (because of my personal experience) that homosexuals want to force Christians to deny the laws of God and declare that they may be saved without repentance.

What inconsistency? I'm guessing you're missing a step in there. Like all people who say that "calling homosexuality is wrong is wrong" are also calling Christians "narrow-minded bigots". Such a blanket statement could easily be debunked by the number of homosexuals who are also Christians.

I said all?

 

[shuamort]

Oh, here I go showing my ignorance again. Who's he?

Reverend Fred Phelps out of Topeka, Kansas. He runs the website Godhatesfags.com. On the website are things like:
Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2393 days.


1) the absolute sovereignty of "GOD" in all matters whatsoever (e.g., Jeremiah 32:17, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Proverbs 16:4, Matthew 19:26, Romans 9:11-24, Romans 11:33-36, etc.),
2) the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" involving eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment of most of mankind in Hell forever (e.g., Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.), and
3) the certainty that all impenitent sodomites (under the elegant metaphor of "FAGS" as the contraction of faggots, fueling the fires of God's wrath) will inevitably go to Hell (e.g., Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 7, etc.). (If you are concerned with our use of the word "fag", please click here to find out why we use this word.)

This time, you are wrong. My roommate in college was a lesbian, and her partner was my best friend. For them, and a lot of the homosexual people they introduced me to, it WAS about God.

And there are also churches that are not only gay friendly, but supportive.

Among the first to marry, under a rainbow flag at a Boston church with the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus, were Robert Compton and David Wilson. They were one of the seven couples whose lawsuit prompted the state high court to rule in favor of gay marriage in its landmark November decision. An excerpt from the Supreme Judicial Court decision was read as an invocation at the Unitarian Universalist church.

Funny, we don't hear about homosexuals wanting to get married in Buddhist ceremonies or Muslim ceremonies...either that's because such ceremonies are not publicized OR they are less tolerant of homosexuals than Christians are and nobody dares come out.

You're forgetting the big factor. The majority of religious people in the US are of a christian denomination. But, here's a quick article Muslim Canadian Congress endorses gay marriage or Muslims and Gay Marriage: Is a Loving Commitment Between Two People Such a Bad Thing?

No, I still hold (because of my personal experience) that homosexuals want to force Christians to deny the laws of God and declare that they may be saved without repentance.

You'll have to explain to me where in the bible homosexuality is mentioned. You ignored my points about what the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah were and the definition of arsenokotai was (from the NT). Neither of which mention homosexuality except in mistranslations.

Of course, you'll also have to contend with that there are many people that want to force the church to do this and that. It doesn't mean that that will happen. Women want to become priests in the Catholic Church for instance. The government cannot force the RCC to make women priests.

On top of all that, the Supreme Court has already ruled for the Boy Scouts of America and the fact that they are constitutionally allowed to not let homosexuals work if they don't want to hire them or have them in their group. Same thing would apply to any church that doesn't want to marry anyone for any reason.

 

[Rev.]

Reverend Fred Phelps out of Topeka, Kansas. He runs the website Godhatesfags.com.

Oh, heavens! I wish you had left me ignorant! I feel like I did after I learned the truth about the Crusades. :3oops:

And there are also churches that are not only gay friendly, but supportive.

Yes, I know. And I wish my friend would have gone to one.

You are forgetting the big factor. The majority of religious people in the US are of a christian denomination. But, here's a quick article Muslim Canadian Congress endorses gay marriage or Muslims and Gay Marriage: Is a Loving Commitment Between Two People Such a Bad Thing?

I read both articles, and they both worked hard to convince Muslims that homosexuality is okay. The Canadian Muslim group endorsed the gay marriage bill NOT because they agreed that homosexuality is acceptable, but because of their own personal experience as a minority. That's NOT the same as Muslims happily celebrating same-sex unions. My original point was that Christians are not the only religious group that has issues with the homosexual lifestyle.

You'll have to explain to me where in the bible homosexuality is mentioned. You ignored my points about what the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah were and the definition of arsenokotai was (from the NT). Neither of which mention homosexuality except in mistranslations.

I wasn't ignoring, I was postponing until I could look into it further. :smile:

Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked. The #1 sin against God is...idolatry. Spiritual adultery. I suspect that was Sodom and Gomorrah's sin that led to their destruction was idolatry. That is the sin that God dismantled Israel over, and it is the sin that will lead to the ultimate judgement of America. Debauchery in all its forms are the fruit of idolatry. The more I study my Bible the more I see idolatry as THE SIN. Something about studying Ancient Cultures with my kids this year put all that in perspective for me.

Homosexuality itself is pretty soundly condemned in Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13.

As for arsenokotai, this word has its roots in two words: arsen which means "man" (in turn rooted in the word airo "to lift"), and koitewhich means "a couch" with flavors of "cohabitation" and "sperm." It is not clear who the man is cohabitating with and sharing his sperm with on the couch if you do a study of the word based strictly its roots. It is apparently a word Paul may have borrowed from the Septuagint as the Greek translation of the Hebrew word originally contained in the Leviticus verses referenced above.

All that to say...I have no idea what it reallymeans. Neither does anyone else. Do you have any theories?

 

[V.I. Lenin]

I'm sorry to come in so late but...i must ask this.....


Since when is America a theocracy? Since when did the Bible replace all laws and empathy felt between fellow Americans?

 

[ShamMol]

I'm sorry to come in so late but...i must ask this.....


Since when is America a theocracy? Since when did the Bible replace all laws and empathy felt between fellow Americans?

It doesn't, but it does have deep impact on the argument since the vast majority, not including me, are religious. The religion aspect is increased even more because we have a Reverend here, or someone training to be one...I don't know.

America has turned into a mini-theocracy. Now, before you attack me and say, what about seperation of Church and state-I completely agree that they are seperate in America...to a point. There is allowed to be some interaction and it can have a huge influence on lawmakers without it being unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional, it would expressly have to mention that God was the reason, etc. Here, religion gives many of those who argue against gay marriage their backbone so to speak and that is a-ok in America, and while it can be the basis for thought, it can't be the basis for law....I think I really sound cryptic now, so I will stop talking.

 

[Rev.]

I'm sorry to come in so late but...i must ask this.....


Since when is America a theocracy? Since when did the Bible replace all laws and empathy felt between fellow Americans?

It's not. I never said it was. And the Bible doesn't replace all laws. It can't because not everyone who lives here subscribes to Biblical values (not even all Christians.

Those in the Christian Civic League etc. claim that the laws of this country must be rewritten in cases where you can't cite a chapter and verse in support. I personally think that is extreme and recently went head to head with someone in my own church when I refused to sign their petiton to overturn the new gay-rights law in our state. (I said, "Why would we want to do that?") Part of the reason why I'm here is to answer in my own mind, "Does the Bible compel Christians to force legislative change in countries where the laws don't agree with the Bible?" And because America is NOT a theocracy, I don't see how it can. But, seeing as how I'm told that the moral decay of society will be my fault if I won't support legislation against what our religion regards as sin, I guess I'm still studying that for myself.

As for "my opinion of gay marriage" I responded to the original poster because there was a lot of emotion, little substance, poor logic and it got a lot of "Hear! Hear!" There is so much emotion associated with this issue and so little reason. Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry? I still haven't heard one good reason why. Descrimination doesn't fly IMO, because there is already other discrimination in place that restricts who may be married. The fact that marriage has traditionally been "a union between a man and a woman" for centuries and has crossed all culture is a pretty strong arguement FOR continuing to restrict marriage...besides all the religious associations (which also transcend religion...Christianity is NOT the only religion that would find a homosexual marriage abhorant).

I'm sorry if you ever got the impression that I wanted all of America to submit to God's law (well, I do :smile: ...but I don't believe that the way to make that happen is through the White House).

 

[Rev.]

America has turned into a mini-theocracy.

You know as well as I do that the Christian-right would say that this country was founded on Biblical principles for religious reasons, therefore, they are fighting to return to what we once were.

Now, before you attack me and say, what about seperation of Church and state-I completely agree that they are seperate in America...to a point. There is allowed to be some interaction and it can have a huge influence on lawmakers without it being unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional, it would expressly have to mention that God was the reason, etc. Here, religion gives many of those who argue against gay marriage their backbone so to speak and that is a-ok in America, and while it can be the basis for thought, it can't be the basis for law....I think I really sound cryptic now, so I will stop talking.

I have no issue with anything you've said...but just for the sake of discussion: you said we can't write a law based on religious arguement, i.e. overturning the gay-rights law. BUT writing a law just because you happen to not like the law that currently exists can't be acceptable either...and that is what I see happening. That is a bad precedent. What if all the 18yos began campaining that the 21yo drinking age be lowered just because they don't like waiting? Restrictions to certain things ARE legal, and I think gays are hard-pressed to prove discrimination on this marriage bill.

 

[Montalban]

Marriage is a civil union of a particular type.

There is so much emotion associated with this issue and so little reason. Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry? I still haven't heard one good reason why. Descrimination doesn't fly IMO, because there is already other discrimination in place that restricts who may be married. The fact that marriage has traditionally been "a union between a man and a woman" for centuries and has crossed all culture is a pretty strong arguement FOR continuing to restrict marriage...besides all the religious associations (which also transcend religion...Christianity is NOT the only religion that would find a homosexual marriage abhorant).

A well thought out response. If the secularist government wants to pass a law that allows homosexuals some kind of union that enables the transfer of property etc that is akin to what takes place in marriage, then so be it. However it is not a marraige. A marriage is a specific type of union. Just as in business I can't make certain categories a partner in my company (because a company is a specific type of organisation - which doens't preclude others from forming different types of business relationships).

I can't form a 'marriage' with another person currenlty invovled in a marriage union. I can't for a 'marriage' with one person when I'm currently invovled in a marriage union. However the laws make no provision stopping me having sexual relations with more than one person.

 

[shuamort]

As for arsenokotai, this word has its roots in two words: arsen which means "man" (in turn rooted in the word airo "to lift"), and koitewhich means "a couch" with flavors of "cohabitation" and "sperm." It is not clear who the man is cohabitating with and sharing his sperm with on the couch if you do a study of the word based strictly its roots. It is apparently a word Paul may have borrowed from the Septuagint as the Greek translation of the Hebrew word originally contained in the Leviticus verses referenced above.

All that to say...I have no idea what it reallymeans. Neither does anyone else. Do you have any theories?

This quote says it better than I could:
The passages which are usually mistranslated as condemning homosexuals are probably condemnations only of the (then common) practice of married men patronizing young male prostitutes. It all comes down to the interpretation of an obscure Greek word (arsenokoites) which seems to have been coined by Paul and the exact meaning of which is still unknown. The word is found subsequent to Paul mostly on vice lists which do not provide enough context to supply a definition but the word usually appears in close proximity to prostitution. Defining the word as referring to passive male prostitutes is problematic because the suffix koites in compounds was always used to designate the penetrative partner in a sexual act, not the receptive. Matters are also complicated by the fact that there are at least two occasions when the word can be found to refer to heterosexual sex. In one case, it is used to describe male prostitutes with female clients, and on another occasion some men are described as enganging in arsenokoites with their wives.

The word is also used in The Apology of Aristides in conjuction with the rape of Ganymede ( a boy) by Zeus.

The evidence then is too sparse and too contradictory to provide us with a clear definition. It can't mean "gay sex" because it was used at least sometimes for hetero sex. The weight of the evidence seems to be that it meant pederasty - especially as it pertained to the practice of using "rent boys" (who were mostly slaves) but the meaning may have broadened to mean anal sex or other things. The controversial Yale historian, John Boswell, thought that it referred to active male prostitutes who performed with either men or women but also suggested that it could have sometimes referred to sexually aggressive behavior or rape.

I think the connection with male prostitution is pretty clear, and if it wasn't for the one gigolo reference I would be completely confident that Paul was only condemning pederasty. I think the cultural context of Paul's audience supports that as well. It was a common practice in hellenistic cities and is plausibly something Paul would have felt compelled to address.

In any case, a general definition of aresonokoitai as homosexuals cannot be supported by the available evidence.

 

[Rev.]

In any case, a general definition of aresonokoitai as homosexuals cannot be supported by the available evidence.

It can't be entirely refuted either based on the facts I cited before regarding Paul borrowing and adapting the word from the Septuagint.

But in the end, why must the Bible specifically say "Homosexuality" is wrong for the Bible to be interpreted as teaching it? The scripture holds that ALL sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong including but not limited to incest, adultery, fornication, bestiality, prostitution, rape and homosexuality.

Why isn't that enough?

 

[ShamMol]

I think you missed the point of that post. It was to distinguish between the institution of marriage as established by God and the ceremony of marriage which reflects the traditions and culture of men.

You also have to understand that MY posts are written from a God-centered viewpoint. Someone asks a question and I WILL answer with that theological background. I made that clear up front, so you can keep your implied accusations to yourself. I will not be like any other Christian you have ever met, so if you want to put your attitude away and have an adult conversation, maybe you'll learn something (and I am sure I will too.)

I understand that completely, you have no idea, and I have tried to get around that fact.

The institution of marriage was originally set up by Jews if we want to really start this off. It was adopted by Christians as the exact same thing (meaning that is) to symbolize the exact same thing. Are those two marriages not the exact same? Or is there only a Christian God who accepts Christian weddings?

The traditions and culture of men...to that...is there ever a time when something can be added to culture? Obviously, we didn't just start off with our traditions, we built them over many generations and then came to accept them. Isn't it plausible to add on just one more tradition?

 

[Rev.]

The institution of marriage was originally set up by Jews if we want to really start this off. It was adopted by Christians as the exact same thing (meaning that is) to symbolize the exact same thing. Are those two marriages not the exact same? Or is there only a Christian God who accepts Christian weddings?

I think it would be fair to say that Chrisitians would consider "Christian" marriage as one and the same with "Jewish " marriage (though I am not sure about visa versa). To the Christian, there is no "Christian God." There is only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who Jesus taught us to call Abba Father. Christians would not say we "adopted" the Jewish beliefs about marriage but that we continued with that teaching as we continued with many other Jewish teachings. It is a strictly semantical point as is that marriage was originally set up by the Jews. Technically speaking, we would say it was set up by the GOD of the Jews. Again, it is a semantical point...I think your meaning is apparent but want to remove the possibility of argument from other readers.

The traditions and culture of men...to that...is there ever a time when something can be added to culture? Obviously, we didn't just start off with our traditions, we built them over many generations and then came to accept them. Isn't it plausible to add on just one more tradition?

Sure...Christmas was a religious holiday for Romans, then became a religious holiday for Christians and now is a religious holiday for Retailers.

Seriously though, there is a difference between changing they WAY we celebrate and WHAT we are celebrating. To add homosexual couples to the list of those who may be married is simply not the same as allowing couples to write their own vows or light unity candles.

 

[ShamMol]

I think it would be fair to say that Chrisitians would consider "Christian" marriage as one and the same with "Jewish " marriage (though I am not sure about visa versa). To the Christian, there is no "Christian God." There is only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who Jesus taught us to call Abba Father. Christians would not say we "adopted" the Jewish beliefs about marriage but that we continued with that teaching as we continued with many other Jewish teachings. It is a strictly semantical point as is that marriage was originally set up by the Jews. Technically speaking, we would say it was set up by the GOD of the Jews. Again, it is a semantical point...I think your meaning is apparent but want to remove the possibility of argument from other readers.

Alright, this point is mute and I agree completely with what you said. To those who practice it, it is theirs, and from a historical perspective, it began with the Jews and the Christians continued. That is what we agree on?

Sure...Christmas was a religious holiday for Romans, then became a religious holiday for Christians and now is a religious holiday for Retailers.

Seriously though, there is a difference between changing they WAY we celebrate and WHAT we are celebrating. To add homosexual couples to the list of those who may be married is simply not the same as allowing couples to write their own vows or light unity candles.

I am not saying that we will adopt it immediately, because the festival of lights is completely different than allowing two men to marry. But I am saying down the road...could it be possible that this is added to the Church's traditions. Most likely, no. But that smidgen of possibility is what I was asking. And I hate what Christmas has become, lol-it is about gifts rather than the true meaning of the holiday...kinda sad. The way we celebrate something can be changed overnight, but it would take generations to change the mindset to allow people to accept gay marriage.

 

[Montalban]

Sure...Christmas was a religious holiday for Romans, then became a religious holiday for Christians and now is a religious holiday for Retailers.

Christmas comes from the union of two words Christ and Mass. It is not a Roman religious holiday (holiday - Holy Day)

It is true that a Roman religious holiday happened on that date and Christians chose that date to celibrate the birth of Christ but that means a different thing from what you are suggesting.

NB: too many people concentrate on the Christian objections to homosexuality. Christians are not alone in this.
"When religious Jews struggle with homosexuality"
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0601/jewish.gay.html
"What is Islam's view of homosexuality?
There is no doubt that in Islam homosexuality is considered 'sinful'. Homosexuality as far as Islam is concerned is a profound mistake ( as are all sins if they are not intending to do wrong). Humans are not homosexuals by nature. People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced.
http://www.islamic.org.uk/homosex.html
As to Hinduism... there's an interesting range of discussions at
http://www.hindulogy.biz/_wsn/page2.html
Many feel that what little there is in Hinduism, on the matter, is against homosexuality.

 

[Montalban]

A common missuse of Christian icons

It is a misrepresentation to suggest that it's only Christians (or 'some' Christians). Another mispresentation is the widespread belief amongst some circles that 'the Chruch' has always supported homosexual marraiges. I had one discussion on-line with a person who made this claim. He stated that the "Catholic Church" supports homosexuality. He cited this as 'the' Catholic Church
http://www.forministry.com/USPALCCINSCCSC/GayMarriage.dsp

I stated…

Thanks for that. I made for interesting reading. Can I just point out that they are not 'the' Catholic Church’ For clarity of debate, when we generally refer to the Catholic Church, we mean the Roman Catholic Church, and those churches in communion with it (viz the Uniat Churches). My own church, the Orthodox Church has claim to be called 'Catholic', in that we are universal. We even pray every Sunday for the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.... our own.
They are not "Catholic" in that sense. They say this quite plainly...
"We are Catholic Churches but not Roman Catholic Churches."
http://www.forministry.com/USPALCCINSCCSC/AboutUS.dsp
They are an 'agenda' church in that they are pushing for inclusion of homosexuality into the mainstream of Christianity, which is not a tradition. One of the greatest Orthodox saints was homosexual, but he was non-practicing. That is, he fought against the desires he, and we, consider sinful.

Important is the fact that many groups make the use of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in an attempt to misprepresent church history on the position of gay marriage. As to the examples, it appears frequently on the net, being repeated for instance at
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/bibhom/mythsin.html
and again at
http://www.rense.com/general50/cath.htm
It is interesting to note that these icons are from Kiev, originally from the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai, both of which are Orthodox, not Catholic domains. So your evidence for a start would at first suggest that gay marriages were approved of, in the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic. Given that we two churches were once one church, it's understandable that they'd mix us up.
It is interesting to note here that putting "St. Serge St. Bacchus" in the search engine (www.ithaki.net) almost all the results lead to pro-gay-wedding sites. These icons of Christianity are now icons of social engineers.
A very good look at this was given by another Orthodox poster at
http://www.christianforums.biz/t682773
The more 'convincing' icon, is in fact a very very modern one, used in conjunction with a very modern translation of a text...
"The various words used for "bond" and "union" in the account are striking. For example, is not only the strongest of the possible words for "union," or "uniting," but combines a fascinating range of associations, all certainly familiar to the author of the Greek life of Serge and Bacchus. The most direct of these would be New Testament phrases, many quoted or echoed in the text, especially Col. 3:14 ("love, which is the bond of perfection" ) and Eph. 4:3 ("to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace"). Less clear but even more startling is the use of the same word in [LXX] I Kings 14:24, where it has been taken since the time of Jerome to refer to homosexuality ("And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations . . ."). This is likely a misprision of the Hebrew, but could hardly have been unknown to or missed by the author of the life, if it seemed obvious to Jerome. Its homosexual implication was, moreover, strengthened under Christian influence by the New Testament phrase "bonds of iniquity," which employed the same Greek word for "bond." Following classical usage, late antique and patristic writers used to describe particularly intimate unions of many sorts, ranging from the union of the Trinity to the marriage of husband and wife."
John Boswell writing in 1904
(text given at site above)
However, an older version (also given at same site)
"The Passion of St. Sergius and Bacchus (BHL 7599)
"...They were one in the love of Christ, and were never separated from each other in their earthly military service, joined not by their natural temperament but by the chain of faith, always singing and saying, "How good and pleasant it is for brothers to live together" [Psalm 133:1]. They were, therefore, intelligent and happy soldiers of God, perfectly resolved by the divinely inspired scriptures upon the destruction of the devil's error, and they exercised themselves fully in battle for the destruction of barbarians. ..."
6. He said to them as they entered, "I see it this way, that trusting in my great clemency and humanity, with which protection the gods have provided you, you are willing on top of this to scorn the imperial edict as law-breakers and enemies of the gods. But I will not uphold the complaints which have made about you unless they are proven. Approaching, so, the altar of great Jove, offer sacrifice and taste the mystical offerings, just as the rest do." However Sergius and Bacchus, the martyrs and most brave soldiers of Christ, said in response, "We must discharge to you, O emperor, the earthly military service of our bodies; but we have a true king, Jesus Christ eternal in heaven, the Son of God, to whom we devote our souls, he who is our hope and saving refuge. We offer to him everyday a holy and living sacrifice, and reasoned worship; for we do not sacrifice to, or adore, stones and wood. Your gods have ears but they do not hear the prayer of men. They have noses likewise, but they do not smell the sacrifice which is offered to them. They have mouths but they do not talk, hands but they do not touch, and feet but they do not walk. May they and all who trust in them become like those things which they make" [Psalm 134:18].
7. Thus the emperor was infuriated, his whole face changed, and he ordered that their military belts be immediately removed, that they be stripped of their cloaks and any other military garments, and, at the same time, that their golden collars be removed from about their necks. He dressed them in women's clothing, and he ordered that they be dragged in this way, with the heaviest chains about their necks, right through the middle of the city as far as the palace. When the holy men were being dragged through the middle of the forum they chanted together, saying, "Although we walk in the shadow of death, we shall fear no evils, since you are with us," [Psalm 24:5] and the words of the Apostle, "Denying to this extent all wickedness and earthly desire, [Titus 2:12] and having removed the clothing of the old-man, [Colossians 3:9] let us rejoice naked in our faith in you, O Lord, because you have clothed us in the garment of salvation, and you have wrapped us in the tunic of joy. You have adorned us in women's clothes, like a spouse, unite us to you through our con- fession [Isaiah 61:10]. You, O Lord, have put your trust in us, saying, "You will be led before kings and governors on my account, and when they hand you over [to trial] do not worry how you will sound or what you will say. You will be given what to say at that hour. For they will not be your words which you are speaking, but words from the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you" [Matthew 10: 19-20]."


However, the most telling proofs come from http://www.geocities.com/catholicprayerpage/srgbchs.html. Remember these men were soldiers. Yet they were also Christians. Note a..."Prayer sung by Saints Sergius and Bacchus when they were stripped of their military garb and dressed in brides dresses and chains to be publicly humiliated.
"Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and putting off the form of the old man, naked in faith we rejoice in you, Lord, because you have clothed us with the garment of salvation, and have covered us with the robe of righteousness; as brides you have decked us with women's gowns and joined us together for you [or: "joined us to you"] through our confession. You, Lord, commanded us, saying, 'Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake.... But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.' Rise, Lord, help us and rescue us for your name's sake; strengthen our souls that we may not be separated from you and the impious may not say, 'Where is their God?' "
That is, they appear in the iconography as 'married' because they were placed that way by the Romans to humiliate them - to actually call them 'sissy' (or the Latin
equivalent)

It is easy for people with an agenda and little understanding of the position of Christian (and other denominations) to attempt to hijack the issues.

 

[Rev.]

Christmas comes from the union of two words Christ and Mass. It is not a Roman religious holiday (holiday - Holy Day)

It is true that a Roman religious holiday happened on that date and Christians chose that date to celibrate the birth of Christ but that means a different thing from what you are suggesting.

I do know this...but seeing as the discussion was about gay marriage I didn't want to mix in issues about the origin of Christmas. I do think the analogy supported my point.

Thanks for the links and the church history lesson. And Happy Easter!

 

[Montalban]

Thanks for the links and the church history lesson. And Happy Easter!

XPICTOC ANNECTI
Christ is Risen. Well spotted that I am Orthodox. I thank you for that consideration

I do know this...but seeing as the discussion was about gay marriage I didn't want to mix in issues about the origin of Christmas. I do think the analogy supported my point.

Your analogy was used in agreement with another poster who suggested that we might be able to add on just another 'tradition' (traditions aren't what they used to be!). So, you're example is basically that Christianity was tacked onto the Roman tradition.

Am I understanding you so far... or have I missed it entirely.

 

[shuamort]

It can't be entirely refuted either based on the facts I cited before regarding Paul borrowing and adapting the word from the Septuagint.

The septuagint translates a Hebrew word for male temple prostitutes as something like arsenos koiten which is pretty close.

Bishop Spong, among others, believes that the context of the word in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 indicates that it refers to those who patronized male prostititutes. He draws this conclusion from the fact that the vices of pornai, arsenokoitai and andrapodistai are grouped in that order. pornai were male prostitues or "call boys," and andrapodistai were slave traders. Taken together then, Spong concludes that pauls was referring to male prostitutes, the "Johns" who patronized them and the slave traders who sold them.

koite is used as a suffix in other words and usually implies the active rather than passive) partner in some licentious act. Adelphekoite, for instance, is one who "bed" his sister. There are a number of other such compounds in Greek.

There is at least one instance of usage where arsenokoite explicitly refers to pederasty and that is in the Apology of Arisites in which it refers to the rape of Ganymedes by Zeus.

At best, it's ambiguous given the fact that it's not just used in reference to homosexual acts. Of course, it's fair to say that the word arsenokotai was never used to categorically refer to homosexuals but instead, pederasty. Given the cultural and social context of the audience Paul was addressing, pederasty is a practice he would have been very likely to single out for condemnation.

So what's one to do? We've got a bunch of different versions of the Bible out there now. The NASV has 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "homosexuals" while the RSV has "sexual perverts", the King James has "abusers of themselves with mankind", and the NRSV + NKJV has it as "sodomites". Which, if any, is the true and accurate translation of the original?

The problem is as it sits now, is that Christianity's only condemnation in play is in the above verse from I Corinthians. Paul's statement was that we are free from the strictures of the Law, but not so that we can sin, but so that we can live righteous lives pleasing to the God who saved us. Now Christians know that they are freed from the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament (cloven hooves and kosher food, etc) and the ceremonial law (when to sacrifice what, etc). For some reason, Christians do not believe that Paul's statement freed them from the moral law. There are no statements in the New Testament however that suggest that there is a tri-fold division of law in the Old Testament. Also, we can look towards the Council of Jerusalem in the year 49 that while converting pagans to Christianity removed all Mosaic law except for these four:
-eating food which had been sacrificed to idols
-abstaining from blood
-abstaining from strangled meat
-abstaining from over indulgence in sex

Paul does go into great detail about who will inherit the kingdom of Heaven and is quite specific. The problem is, it's the translators and not Paul's word that is inserting the term "homosexuality" in the Bible erroneously. The Greeks being quite aware of homosexual intercourse and had quite the health vernacular to describe it, Paul would have had no problem find the specific word for condemnation.

But in the end, why must the Bible specifically say "Homosexuality" is wrong for the Bible to be interpreted as teaching it? The scripture holds that ALL sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong including but not limited to incest, adultery, fornication, bestiality, prostitution, rape and homosexuality.

Why isn't that enough?

Then by your argument, shouldn't the christian argument be for marriage between homosexuals?

Of course, also according to Paul, he was a bit against sexual relations even inside of a marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1 that "It is good for a man not to marry" ...."I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am." [meaning sexually chaste] (1 Corinthians 7:6,7).

 

[Rev.]

The
The problem is as it sits now, is that Christianity's only condemnation in play is in the above verse from I Corinthians.

Not so. Consider Romans 1:26-27. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Paul's statement was that we are free from the strictures of the Law, but not so that we can sin, but so that we can live righteous lives pleasing to the God who saved us.

Boy, you understand that better than some of my Christian friends!

Now Christians know that they are freed from the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament (cloven hooves and kosher food, etc) and the ceremonial law (when to sacrifice what, etc). For some reason, Christians do not believe that Paul's statement freed them from the moral law.

No, most don't...which is unfortunate. We have freedom from the Law in Christ. BUT, though we have been set free from sin and the Law, we must balance that with what we have been set free FOR. We are no longer slaves to sin, but we become slaves to Christ. Not to have the freedom to seek our own way and serve our own pleasures, but to serve Christ and each other. It's the half of the Gospel that is not preached much, unfortunatley.

There are no statements in the New Testament however that suggest that there is a tri-fold division of law in the Old Testament.

You are absolutely right.

Then by your argument, shouldn't the christian argument be for marriage between homosexuals?

I suppose it would be, IF we agreed that marriage could include same-sex uinions. But it doesn't.

Of course the issue you haven't addressed...and it could explain why Paul didn't condemn homsexual lifestyles per se...is the fact that homosexuality didn't really exist in the Ancient World. Yes, homosexual activity, but in conjunction with heterosexual...bisexuality, really. Producing an heir was everything, and to turn ones back on the possibility of procreating simply wasn't done. It was too important. So how could Paul condemn a lifestyle that didn't really exist? Think "lifestyle" vs. "hobby"

Of course, also according to Paul, he was a bit against sexual relations even inside of a marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1 that "It is good for a man not to marry" ...."I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am." [meaning sexually chaste] (1 Corinthians 7:6,7).

This wasn't Paul being a prude...this was Paul recognizing that a married Chirstian man has a divided loyalty. He must concern himself with pleasing God AND pleasing his wife. It's better not to be married than to be so divided.

 

[Rev.]

XPICTOC ANNECTI
Christ is Risen. Well spotted that I am Orthodox. I thank you for that consideration

You're welcome!

Your analogy was used in agreement with another poster who suggested that we might be able to add on just another 'tradition' (traditions aren't what they used to be!). So, you're example is basically that Christianity was tacked onto the Roman tradition.

Am I understanding you so far... or have I missed it entirely.

In Christian circles, there is a regular debate about whether we ought to celebrate Chritmas because the Church hyjacked a Roman pagan holiday and Christianized it so that the pagans would be happier about converting. And now it has been hyjacked again by people who wish to make a lot of money. It was supposed to be funny, but I guess it didn't work. Sorry!

But the truth is still there. Homosexuals could "hyjack" marriage and give it all new meaning. And over the years, we would all come to understand it the new way. Could happen!