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

http://www.pravmir.com/same-sex-marriage-how-did-we-get-here-and-where-are-we-going/

Same-Sex Marriage: How Did We Get Here? And Where Are We Going?

Archpriest Lev Semenov May 14th, 2012 //

President Barack Obama recently affirmed his personal support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. For a perspective from Russia on this momentous development, we offer the following commentary by Archpriest Lev Semenov, Dean of the Faculty of Further Education at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University and cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznetskaya Sloboda, both in Moscow.

The political heavyweight of the Western world has taken a step towards the abyss. If we are to believe the news report broadcast on the radio, and later confirmed in the press, President Barack Obama has made his first public statement in support of the legalization of same-sex marriages.

One can only sympathize with the citizens of this country who hold the Christian faith, just imagining how they must have felt when they heard this statement from their head of state…

There are quite a few Orthodox in the United States (my internship at New York University in 1999, when I met clergy and laity of four Orthodox jurisdictions, convinced me of this) and I think they were not pleased by the President’s statement.

In connection with this shocking news, two questions naturally arise: How could this have happened? And what comes next?

It seems obvious that the willingness of the leader of a major world power to recognize same-sex marriage as normal, destroying all grounds of traditional morality and familial structure, has its distant origins rooted in the process of secularization that began to gain strength at the threshold of the modern era.

The pinnacle of its manifestation is now the West’s general fascination with such notorious idols as “political correctness” and “tolerance,” all the while misconstruing them; as a result of which, in defiance of common sense, everything is being turned upside: human rights are being turned against humans, causing irreparable harm to their freedoms, including their freedom of conscience. One does not need to look far to find examples.

“Old Lady Europe” has long been in training to break the records of political correctness. But the New World has since begun to catch up with it.

This tendency towards secular extrapolation began to show itself most clearly with regard to the historical past, an example of which are the attempts at silencing the very place of Christianity in the history of European culture. Thus, despite Christianity’s enormous role in its formation and development over many centuries, contemporary European community legislators, as is well known, have removed the very mention of the Christian roots of European culture from the constitution of the European Union.

Instead of ensuring human rights as regards freedom of conscience, people are in fact deprived of the right to demonstrate their religious identity in even the most restrained manner. In Italy the courts examined the question of the permissibility of having crucifixes on the walls of educational institutions. In Great Britain, the new edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary, designed to expand the vocabulary of school children, has eliminated the words “abbey,” “altar,” “bishop,” “chapel,” “christen,” “monk,” “monastery,” “novice,” “saint,” and a host of other Biblicisms. A stewardess for a British airline was fired because a Christian cross was visible in the neckline of her uniform. In the United States serious intentions have been expressed, on the grounds of having a politically correct attitude towards non-Christians, officially to change the terms Christmas and Easter to “winter” and “spring” holidays.

This epidemic of fundamentally shattering the millennia-old traditional family, which began in Europe some time ago and has now spread to the United States, threatens the moral health of society, the stability of the monogamous family, and the interests of children growing up in families.

It would be interesting to hear from gays and lesbians preparing to form marital unions (if one can call it that), who often express the intention of acquiring children for such “families” by adopting orphans, what kind of upbringing the unfortunate children of such “families” will receive if same-sex marriage is legalized.

Are the democratic societies of Western countries prepared for the prospect, in the very near future, of the mass reproduction, through the upbringing received in such “families,” of entire generations with a similar sexual orientation?

It would be naïve to suppose that those taking the bit between their teeth in this mad rush towards destroying the traditions of Western society will stop here. Elementary logic dictates that, following the rejection of the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery,” the violation of other commandments will ensue; then, surpassing all the horrors of Kafkaesque absurdity, the rejection of the commandment “thou shalt not kill” will arrive. It is not difficult to imagine how “civilized” (read: secularized) humanity, having desired to free itself from the burden of Christian moral values as being too burdensome for their perverse aspirations, would one morning wake up to hear that an American president has expressed his support for the “inalienable” right of every person… to commit murder.

May God grant that this nightmarish dystopia never come into being! But only fidelity to those traditional religious foundations upon which all world culture has been built can serve to bar the way to its realization.

How could this have happened?
In addition to secularization there have been capitulations by Christian communities, adopting as their core values the false gospel of "radical inclusivity" in the pursuit of "justice".

Frequently they liken the crusade for gay parity to be parallel to the American civil rights movement, forgetting that there is no similarity between racial characteristics which carry are morally neutral and which one cannot change and behaviors which are not morally neutraly and which one can (and often should) change.

In some Lutheran circles this occurred in two stages. The first stage, in the 1970's, was to view all scripture through the lens of "Gospel reductionism"...that salvation by grace was paramount and anything not directly related was of secondary, tertiary, or even lesser value.

The second stage was to change what is meant by "Gospel" to mean "radical inclusion"; or, in the words of H. Richard Niebuhr's "The Kingdom of God in America":

"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

How could this have happened?

An excellent question! I remember hearing in 1972 about the Supreme Court's abortion decision and I asked the same question. Obviously scriptural and traditional Christianity is on a 40 year losing streak.

If you enter into a conversation with practically anyone under 30 years old about homosexuality they think you are intolerant and actually hateful???? "Hate", "Crazy" and "superstitious" (their name for belief in God) are words that they use for traditionalists. These terms are used in a unheated, casual conversation....never mind a spirited debate.

People (Including some on this forum) say that politics and religion are taboo. Why, when the religion of atheism uses politics and media so effectively. Have we written off two generations of Christians because it makes us uncomfortable? We continue to "brush off" any heirarchial exhortation to evangelize and are content to attend Divine Liturgy on Sundays.

What happened to the desert Fathers' teaching of fear of God and fear of death? Apparently its something that the baby boomer generation doesn't want to think about.

However....

Christ is risen!

And in God we trust.

Fr Deacon Paul

This pressure is being applied simultaneously on all continents. Newspapers reported yesterday that the President of Argentina is to write to the Australian PM asking her to change to laws here. Same sex marriage is right now a very hot politcal potatoe and every weekend there seems to be protest marches in the various Australian state capitals in favour of the move. Sadly due to the steady re-education that has gone on across society over the past 40 yrs and this includes the Catholic schools and the places for religious and priestly formation there is what seems like a lot of support to make such a change.

The two sides of this debate - which really ought to be a dialogue - are so polarised by panic and rage right now that neither side can really listen and hear what the other side is saying.

In my books, this ain't good. I ain't no advocate of same-sex "marriage" but I do advocate people put themselves in their opponents' shoes for a while and contemplate the opposite point of view as objectively as possible.

The issue isn't going to go away. I suspect those who advocate same-sex "marriage" will eventually carry the day. We might all wanna think about getting used to it and taking it in stride.

"Carry the day?" What does that mean? Will somehow "one man, one woman, resulting in children, for life" will cease to be the way God designed marriage? Basic biology will change course?

Sorry, I won't be signing off on this covenant with death and agreement with hell.

People forget, Jim Crow wasn't retained, it was imposed, in 1876-7. It lasted until 1965 because people "got used to it and took it in stride."

btw, on "dialogue" with the devil, consult the story of Christ in the Wilderness. You can't debate Truth.

Both of your above posts are excellent examples of the very type of polarisation I mentioned.

De-demonise homma-sekshul people. Begin to regard them not as ogres but as your brothers and sisters. To the extent necessary, let us rid ourselves of the prelest which says we're spiritually superior and more intelligent that they are. Let's try something new: let's develop empathy for them and make an honest effort to walk in their shoes for a while.

Relax: 2 homma-sekshuls getting "married" ain't gonna hurt you one bit.

Besides, if ya don't like same-sex "marriage" then don't marry a person of your own gender.

I have a channel on my cable box called 'Me tv'. It brings back many popular shows/sitcoms/westerns/police dramas/scifi from the early 60's to the mid 70's. It is so nice to watch these shows and remember a time when people were respectful and family oriented but MORE IMPORTANTLY when writers were actually able to make one laugh without pushing and shoving sexual jokes, innuendo, situations and conversations into every minute of programming.

When that started, I knew it was the beginning of the end...Strong Christian groups tried to boycott programs and fight the trend, but every time they were successful, even MORE blatant and crass sexual content followed.

I used to follow the Christian sites that spoke up and acted against this new trend because I had children growing up at the time.

One quote I will NEVER forget from Hollywood in response to some of the boycotts was "we will continue pushing the envelope more and more on sexual themes", and they did, and they do....

I assume that soon we will see pornography of some sort on all television shows.
The other trend I noticed was that the 'family hours' and Friday 'TGIF' sitcoms and shows that were clean enough to watch with your children were dying, and have indeed died.
I have only basic cable, yet the titles of pornographic movies on adult channels still accost my eyes when surfing the channels. What if I had children at home? Since I do NOT have these channels, why does my cable company insist on showing the titles to me?

My daughter who is a young adult and I were talking about popular music in Greece the other day, because we both like it. She noted how the lyrics, (even in Greek rap) are not angry, and are generally still about old fashioned love, romance and broken hearts--something she said does not exist in the lyrics of popular music of today's music in the U.S....it is all about anger, sex, and touting a lack of emotion for relationships gone bad.

We have influential industries that are deliberately reforming and desensitizing minds, hearts, and souls.

What I am getting to with all this is that on matters of sexual immorality, we are fighting an upward battle. Most of the warriors (organized groups that used to fight these things) have given up.

I have given up and shrug my shoulders, because I knew that what the President said was only a matter of time, and that whether he said it or not, all these sexually motivated agendas will eventually win.

We live in an overtly sexual, confused, emotionally desensitized and spiritually devoid and morally handicapped society--may God have mercy on us.

good.

No one is demonizing anyone except you.

Love the sinner, hate the sin, doesn't mean excuse the sin. That's a bit off point on the thread, but you brought it up.

Neither is carpet bombing, say, North Korea. But I'm against that as well.

If you don't like pollution, don't drink the water.

Sielos,

More often than not, I agree with your posts, but on this subject I think you've been influenced too much by the "love" vs. "hate" propaganda. It is they, the LGBT groups (for those who don't know LGBT is Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-sexual).

They call those who disagree with them "hateful." I can live with homosexuals; we could co-exist as long as they don't push re-education for children to believe that sodomy is normal and respectable. There is no constitutional clause or scriptural reference that they have special rights; in fact bigamists are on a higher plane.

Why should we accept sodomy as a Sacrament/Mystery? Where is there any precedent? Yes, there is room in the Church for them if they are celibate, just as there is room in the Church and all of its blessings for divorced people, as long as they are celibate. What is the difference?

Their whole campaign is based on power and upheaval, not common sense.

Yes, I admit that I was a little surprised as well, and wondered if the tone of 'sielos' in *parts* (some of it I agreed with) of his post was intended to be facetious or sarcastic?

What I do agree with is that we should not demonize the homosexually oriented or practicing person(though the whole movement is unsettling) as individuals. I have also found that most really hate certain Christian denominations which they find, or think are 'hateful'. I think that the Eastern approach (especially Orthodox) of seeing the Church as a hospital for souls, and that no one is more a sinner than the other, but that rather we are all 'spiritually sick', falling far from what God intends us to be, and in need of God's grace is a more loving approach, and one which leaves those that hate Christians a bit speechless...since they are so used to the black and white, fire and brimstone approach of the West towards their sin...Only when one admits that heterosexuals have just as many sins (promiscuity, lust, adultery) to deal with, will the gay individual, atleast 'listen' to anything Christianity related.

In any case, it doesn't matter, because the 'movement' (gay pride parades, equal rights, marriage, normal alternative to heterosexuality, gay clubs in schools, etc.)is a delusional and illogical one which no longer pertains to individuals, and it is a movement which has successfully brainwashed so much of the country.

to follow up on that, anyone who doesn't want gay marriage and wants no fault divorce is kidding himself.

With all this debate I wonder if the church should create a new word for Sacramental Marriage. If the government can turn Christmas into winter holiday let the goverment have the word marriage and have the church create a new word. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

That is a good thought, but marriage can also be a non-religious civil one (as in a justice of the peace) so I don't know that the word could be changed, since it isn't only used for Christians...

I did think that 'civil union' was the term which should have been used.

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.