GOD BLESS YOUR SOUL,
It is people like you who save many lives from the consequences of fraud ignorant statements made by propagandists

Homosexual marriage is a social experiment that belies history and tradition. It’s the culmination of a deep confusion about man and nature that finds is most penetrating and illuminating intellectual expression in Orthodox theology and is actualized in and through the Church (rightly understood and practiced). Since you consider that a “narrow religious definition” only nature remains but nature is an exacting taskmaster. You can only defy it for only so long.

Western Christian culture is in moral collapse. The cultural structures necessary for a stable civilization are crumbling. Sexuality is inextricably tied to creativity (of which the possibility of procreation is one expression) but male to male relations existentially deny that possibility. Homosexual families are necessarily artificial contrivances that in the end will exact a toll on the children brought up in them. This development merely represents a step farther down the road of the collapse of the family and society in the end.

Philosophically, homosexual parings violates the natural complementarity of male and female, the biological binaries as we used to call them but presently is also under attack. The term “gender” is conflated into “sex” and any sense of nature — the natural — is discarded. Again, in theological terms this represents a radical shift in the anthropology that guided Western culture for two millennia but since this too references a “narrow religious definition” let’s call on nature again: the plumbing does not fit; the anal canal is not a sexual organ. Pretending it does will exact a penalty no matter how strenuously we deny it as the sexual disease rates of active homosexuals makes clear. Again, nature is a demanding taskmaster.

Homosexuality then, at least the elevation of homosexual couplings to moral parity with heterosexual unions (marriage and family being preferred) is in fact an elevation of nihilism, the celebration of sterility, the denial that human creativity draws from and points to something greater than the object of one’s sexual desire. The very act of homosexual “intercourse” where the progenitive seed is deposited in the waste canal of a same-sex partner reveals the nihilistic core of this ideological project. Adopting children cannot negate this. Nature too is a teacher.

Put in theological terms then, all desire must, if man is to understand where his authenticity as man is grounded, be sublimated into the desire for God. Put another way, when God is forgotten all is permitted.

Fr Hans writes: “Homosexual “marriage” will fail as will homosexual “families.”’

Fail in what sense? If you mean according to a narrow religious definition (man + woman = success), then of course, it’s doomed from the start. I don’t think that’s what you mean, though. We probably agree that success involves commitment as well as a willingness to let go of a slavish devotion to one’s own needs and wants for the better of one’s spouse/partner and one’s children.

It is true, many gay relationships will not last forever. Some will, though. Some will adopt or raise children of their own through IVF or surrogacy, and these children will sometimes do well, sometimes not (just as is the case with heterosexual couples). Some of these children will even fare better than those raised by parents of opposing genders.

That being said, I concede that there does need to be a “great awakening” amongst the gay community, just as there needs to be one amongst the African-American community which has an unfortunately higher rate of crime and single parenthood. To this cause, I think the orthodox religious community has much to offer. It’s certainly not going to come from a liberal political mindset which thinks that the answers to all of life’s difficulties can be found in more “funding”.

The “harm” that’s going to come to them is far worse than any deadly disease. The harm is that they will go through life never finding what their hearts yearn for: the fulfilling comfort and consolation, as well as the completion, of being authentically loved by another human being because they are seeking it from those who do not have it to give.

The harm is that they may very well end their lives in despair, never realizing that the only Man who can heal their brokenness, Christ-God, was right in front of them all along, lovingly waiting for them to give up their endless, futile quest (promiscuity) and turn to Him. The harm that will come to them will be that the very wicked people who are using them will throw them under the bus when they are no longer needed.

The harm that will come to priests and bishops who, weak in faith, do not tell them that Jesus our God is truly He whom their hearts seek, and believe that they can alleviate this loneliness by re-writing the Laws of God, will be a mill stone around their necks.

Take a deep breath Michael.

Both you and the author of an article regarding homosexuality at discussion in another thread purposely confuse the distinction of Orthodox Anthropology “as it was in the beginning” and according to the Creation, and what you term “theological anthropology” that reflects the fallen nature of our humanity in the context of this broken world. Orthodox Anthropology is once and for all time, reflecting the very image and likeness of the Creator, at His very Hand – not subject to the “shifts” of this continuously eroding and ultimately terminal fallen humanity that defies and rejects the Spirit that enlivens – but to be directly seen again in the Kingdom which is to come. While you yourself say that “traditional assumptions about the nature of man are shifting,” [emphasis mine], you act as if societal forces actually posses the power to affect change in the Orthodox Anthropology itself, therefore justifying extraordinary means to stop them; and in the case of NARTH and the Christian Right, this includes the condoning of deceit, manipulation, and outright lying. This is a despicable form of pride that is completely foreign to the Orthodox mind, as it suggests that God Himself is impotent to manage the worst of human sacrilege in this world – and apparently in the world to come – that the end justifies the means.

And in this same vein, I am the one who stands at the line of clinical & legal confrontations and ethical dilemmas regarding LGBT individuals in the medical environment, not you. And you would lecture me from behind your cassock & cross as to the “impending” conflict and societal “crises?” Wake up man! Faced with the loss of licensing and a means of income for refusing to participate in “transgender transitioning therapy” or pre-abortion counseling, shall I phone you for moral support & direction? Exactly which Chuck Colson article shall you direct me toward? Frankly, Fr. Hans, you are the last person on the earth I would consider consulting because you are a classic ideologue: you talk, talk, and talk war games, but you know nothing about battling darkness. I suggest you order yourself a copy of our Father John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, just in time for his Lenten commemoration. You will not find a charlatan or creep in the whole volume.

1.7% of the population engages in homosexual behavior at any one time. Of this number 37% leave the lifestyle — transition to heterosexuality in other words. If people want therapy to help them in the transition let them have it. All this Sturm und Drang is simply not necessary.

Homosexuality has been politicized, especially in the professional guilds of the social sciences. Yet homosexuality constituted as an orientation represents a profound shift in theological anthropology; traditional assumptions about the nature of man are shifting into a deterministic model that will have profound cultural consequences down the road. This is indisputable and it is virtually certain it will occur. The next step is speech codes against the criticism of homosexual behavior (right outside the door), and finally the legal prohibition of any therapies for people who want to move away from homosexuality.

Obviously you don’t agree with this. That much is clear. But your implicit determinism cannot stop with homosexuality alone. Next is pedophilia which, given the current thinking, also qualifies as an orientation. There will be other perversions down the road.

The truth is that passions, when acted upon, effect an orientation. This is not restricted to sexual passions alone. This conclusion however, is becoming increasingly dim as traditional Christian anthropology is overturned. Pounding your fist on the table doesn’t change this fact.

A good read:

Inventing the Homosexual

You would make this out to be a personal “bias” or “prejudice” of mine because you are unqualified to speak to such matters. You might make an honest and credible attempt of going to Google – Imagine! – and addressing the issues of their demonstrated academic deceit; their refusal to provide details of their research design; their process criteria to select voluntary subjects; determinations of harm-to-benefit ratios with human subjects and the publication of their overseeing committee to monitor patient safety; their failure to release raw data and statistical analysis to support their claims of re-orientation “success” at published rates of “30% and greater”; and their failure to release any data as to reports of harmful consequences to their “their” despite the fact that there is an abundance of anecdotal reports from participants. You will find that I have simply enumerated the basics of legitimate clinical research with human subjects, and what NARTH has done is not only distasteful and academically offensive, but unethical. They are self-funded, self-refereed and self-published because they cannot meet the academic criteria to be included in the legitimate, mainstream scientific media. While they might insist they are excluded because of “prejudice,” they are deceivers, and a number of their “scholars” have been dismissed from professional organizations for misrepresenting their data and the otherwise legitimate data of others. By definition, they are charlatans and creeps.

You statement that “Your conclusion that anyone who argues that homosexual desire in not immutable is met with this…” would suggest that I made a statement that “homosexual desire in not immutable.” I have never, ever made such a statement. I personally believe that, without the ability to continue research, we do not possess enough information to definitively reach a conclusive statement for every individual. I would note that my beloved Professor of Dogmatic Theology, SS Verhovskoy, was asked if it were possible for satan to repent: he indicated that “probability and inclination at times is such that it can be said it is so unlikely that it simply cannot happen. Nevertheless, God is our Father, and the Holy Spirit goes where He wishes…” I suggest you do not put words in my mouth that do not belong there.

I always manage to answer your questions directly, while you possess a marvelous ability to skirt the “issues” by focusing on “hot-button” derivatives, a technique that serves you well in this sandbox. I would pay money to get you in a live debate: I would take your wallet, your watch, and your car keys before you knew what hit you…

Your conclusion that anyone who argues that homosexual desire in not immutable is met with this:

They hate homosexuals and homosexual individuals; play upon their guilt & shame; disregard any notion of the safety of human subjects, and apply “treatment” that is untested and unproven as to its effectiveness or harm; and lie as to their “rate of success.”

Not much can be said that will penetrate such self-certainty.

You say I “don’t approve of NARTH.” What I resent is their manipulation of the integrity of the legitimate scientific system by which we often determine life-saving and life-enhancing therapies and treatment. They knowingly & purposely subvert the system with deception and lies, “mirroring” the system of integrity as a means to their own prideful end. They hate homosexuals and homosexual individuals; play upon their guilt & shame; disregard any notion of the safety of human subjects, and apply “treatment” that is untested and unproven as to its effectiveness or harm; and lie as to their “rate of success.” How you are able to align yourself with these people – ideologically or otherwise – or object to me referring to them as charlatans and creeps is beyond me.

Finally, it would never cross my mind to enter into a discussion – say, for example, in chemical engineering – at the technical level of expertise at which you enter this discussion, without a thorough appreciation and understanding of the base literature of the field. You have been quoting this dated study from the CDC and Michael Medved for years now, and I have provided you with more current data that is accepted by the field in general on this very site on several occasions. Exactly when do you believe you have “reached your limits” and are no longer competent to carry on this discussion? In my estimation, you exhausted your limitations several years ago, and the posting of this video brought absolutely no new information to this discussion. I say again, if you want contemporaneous “responses” to Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Julie Harren Hamilton, Floyd Godfrey, Jeffrey Satinover, Benjamin Kaufman, Nicholas A. Cummings, and Stanton L. Jones, provide me the forum as you did for all the writers you have featured whom you support, and I am happy to oblige.

I’m a realist, and you seem to be as well. I think people are more likely to respond if you encourage them to love better instead of trying to tell them love someone else for purely rational or pragmatic reasons or because the gender of the object of their affection is “incorrect”.

That is not a Realist definition of love (or Love). A Realist would never affirm the ontology of man (anthropology) found in the Church as something purely “rational” or “pragmatic” – that is a Nominalist definition of man. A Realist would never separate the ontology of objects from the relationship between the objects, defining Love down to the purely “relational” – a Nominalist would however.

I think you have confused modern “pragmatism” with Realism…

Your argument reminds me of the debate several decades back about capital punishment and crime rates. The debate went back and forth until people realized that some human behavior is too complex to neatly fit into empirical categories (the sobriquet social science notwithstanding).

It’s clear you don’t approve of NARTH. What you don’t provide is any explanation why 37% of the 1.7% of the population practicing homosexuality at any one time eventually leave the lifestyle. You won’t be able to of course but only because these questions lie outside of the purview of social science.

We know that the speculations of social scientists have reached their limits when their research is driven by ideology and their professional guilds become political action committees. That’s what we see with the APA (which you affirmed above). That’s also when language like “creep” and “charlatan” is expected to be taken seriously.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage and the preservation of family is the answer. The culture is in moral free fall out of which the notion that homosexual couplings can replicate the family emerges. Gay INC is fundamentally a dishonest enterprise, but not all homosexuals buy into it.

For example see:

Dolce & Gabbana: drama that could only be fashioned in Italy

France: Is this the most homoerotic anti-gay protest ever?

The “gay marriage” movement is a public relations effort designed to create moral parity for homosexual activity. Homosexual “marriage” will fail as will homosexual “families.”

I think we agree in terms of what the problems are. I just don’t buy into the notion that heterosexuality is a solution. Heterosexuality guarantees nothing. Abortion, divorce and the abandonment and abuse of children is an epidemic amongst heterosexuals. Go onto any adoption site and see how many children have been rejected by their own parents. It’s heartbreaking.

I’m a realist, and you seem to be as well. I think people are more likely to respond if you encourage them to love better instead of trying to tell them love someone else for purely rational or pragmatic reasons or because the gender of the object of their affection is “incorrect”.