It’s worth a watch. It uses the beginning of Mendelssohn’s “Italian Symphony” in the biking scenes. And here’s a classic line from the protagonist’s father, who is suspicious of his son’s excursions into other cultures: “I don’t want any more foreign food! I want American food. I want French fries!”

We are all frustrated. Whenever I’ve been tempted to go down the street I remember the example of the Cappadocian Fathers and St Athanasius (among many) who never preceived of the possibility of going down the street depspite the fact that the Arian heresy had taken such hold of so many (most?) in the Church. It is a lessen worth remembering and I said it as much for myself as for you. You had the ears to hear and may many graces flow to you from your hearing.

Tomas,

I’m no so sure either that opposing gay marriage is becoming a “less coherent” position to the general public. Yes, it seems that way if you listen to the media but whenever the issue is brought to the voters, gay marriage is roundly defeated. It even lost in California.

You are right though about marriage and religious duty. The collapse of cultural arrangements is due to the increasing secularism in the culture, a tautology really because secularism is that collapse.

Thank you, Michael, for that necessary wakeup via verbal slap. You’re right, and I was frustrated.

Tomas, while I agree with much of what you say, I have to add that it is important to realize that marriage is also about joy rather than happiness. Joy is a transcendent gift of God, a unmerited grace. It is far beyond happiness.

The conjugal union that is founded upon love of God first is not free from emotion, nor is it entirely rational or sober. It is liberating in that it is kenotic in all of its aspects. It helps each partner to know themselves.

Most of all it is the foundation for raising children and providing children with both a mother, a father and initial knowledge of God.

Homosexual marriage is a possibility because Christians and the Church have failed dismally in living real marriage. We have allowed our own passions to destroy the reality of marriage for many. While the fight must proceed, I am afraid it is a bit like a small group of bleeding but faithful knights trying to defend a castle that is already mostly demolished by betrayed by the lords and other inhabitants of the castle.

George, I believe the movie was Breaking Away.

Fr, that reminds me of a movie from about 30 years ago. I can’t remember the name of it but it had to do something with bicycling and it took place in Indiana.

alyosha, a preaching which will likely be filled with a great deal of heresy and personalism that essentially denies the Incarnation and the ability to actually commune with Jesus Christ. That same reality that is/was available to you every Sunday despite the moral and pastoral failings of our priests and bishops. It is a bad bargin.

If you want strong Biblical preaching and it is not in your parish, you can find it in the Church nonetheless. Read St. John Chrysostom and the other Fathers for instance. Respectfully and lovingly challenge your priest to improve the content of his sermons. Podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio are a good source as is Fr. Stephan Freeman’s blog Glory to God for All Things http://glory2godforallthings.com/

Don’t be passive. Put your own understanding of Biblical principals into action locally. The Orthodox praxis of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, worship, repentance and forgiveness is the Traditional understanding of the Biblical life. While some twist that practice into “pray, pay and obey” that does not lessen its power to transform if entered into with an open heart submitting to God’s love.

And remember, the Bible taken out of context of the Church becomes an idol.

By the way, the problem is not emotions, per se. Rather, it is the notion that marriage is primarily a construct to satisfy emotional needs, and Transform Minnesota’s appeal to this notion does not bode well (even if it is directed towards heterosexual couples).

This is why opposing gay marriage is becoming a less coherent position to the general public. If marriage is about “personal satisfaction”, why oppose civil contracts to gay couples when it doesn’t harm anyone in a materially tangible way?

We’ve lost the notion that marriage is — first and foremost — a religious duty and that spouses should be chosen with the same sense of level-headedness, calculation and even emotionlessness that one might have when picking out a residence or career. Chemistry and emotion are ephemeral and unreliable … they change with the wind. They’re certainly not a reasonable mechanism for dictating whom one should marry.

Good luck trying to convince the culture at large of this, however.

On the 2008 ballot as Proposition 8, “The Defense of Marriage Act,” it is said to be responsible for the largest voter turnout in CA history (78%) and passed with 52% of the vote. Immediately, any number of groups were filing suits in CA Supreme Court that the now law was unconstitutional. Long story short, it was overturned in CA, upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and after more actions in the lower courts, on June 5, 2012 the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to “revisit” their ruling, leaving the US Supreme Court as the last court of appeal. On July 31, 2012, it was submitted for consideration.

The point of this cynical diatribe? We have reached a point where interest groups will calculate access to the courts (and in an objective sense, it was fascinating to read of the process of selecting the “test couple” to sue CA for discrimination as “average,” middle-class, American-dream seeking, “churchly” valued people) to nullify voter results pursuant to the law. Is it possible that policy concerning the greatest moral issues of our time will be determined by a combination of nine men and women who have, historically, tended to split evenly, and in effect be decided by a single vote?

Sentimentality is generally characterized by an appeal to emotion in a way that would be disproportionate to what the situation merits, sometimes in an extreme manner that borders on satire.

Is that what you see here? If so, who is displaying that? Looks like both sides to me.

““This gift of marriage is given to us by God to create a loving and secure bond between husband and wife, where they can share the deepest emotions and the most joyful pleasures of physical intimacy”.

“Deepest emotions?” St Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn, and that he preferred believers remain as he was (single). Nowhere does he promise a “sharing of deepest emotions” or a “most joyful” intimacy. Marry or remain celibate … or go to hell because of fornication/remarriage/homosexuality. Emotions have little to do with the matter.