@@qwertyTRiG God commanded man and woman to procreate and fill the Earth. Contrary to that commandment it's sin and disobedience to the Creator except being celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven and becoming monk/priest. Also, no one spoke of hate for the human rights here in this part of comment section except you. Blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ to you and peace.
I am a girl and I did feel a few times attraction towards other girls, but I never thought anything more about it than "simple crushes". I did not think I am a lesbian or bisexual, or that I should change my entire beliefs based on that. I simply let them pass and moved on with my life. Just another temptation in my road towards God.
That was you and your experience. But your experience is not the same as that of thousands and thousands of other people. Everybody has passing phases, but not everybody is gay.
It is the same in essence though the reason people think they are gay is because they have sexual thoughts and temptations and then they refer to others and are told its good to be ‘who they are’ or they are met with hostility and shield their temptations even more. Just because you feel someway doesn’t mean you should do it or identify as it. And the orthodox belief is that all sexual temptation whether straight or gay is sin and shouldn’t be accepted as a good thing. Also no hate please don’t make angry reply let’s have a civil discussion.🙏
@@jojadoom why would I hate on this? I agree with you, except my temptations weren't "sexual". Just because I found girls attractive (like 2% of my crushes were girls, the rest were guys) doesn't mean it was sexual.
@@ileanagheorghisor True, you didn't. But in the context (the comments to a particular video) your statement naturally could become part of the narrative "all gay people just got fixated on a phase that would have passed if they just let it." And that narrative is false, and I will correct it wherever I find it, because it leads to various forms of death. I wasn't really reacting to you, but to the whole picture.
My personal conspiracy theory is that politicians purposefully choose topics such as gay marriage, LGBTQ and such only to distract voters from truly important topics politicians don't want or don't have a solution for. Our society is overly obsessed on these topics, on both sides of the political spectrum.
I agree to some extent. However, it is easy for the elite to focus on nonsense because addressing real problems would require them to do real work. For example, the elite go bannans over the CO2 cows produce but could care less about the tons of CO2 their private jets produce. As far as sex issues go, leave it for the bedroom and keep it out of the public forum. Humanity got along just fine when marriage was traditional. The WHO classified what is now called normal as a mental condition, but now everything goes. The elite like this because they are perverted and, in most cases have a true mental issue. Too much and never enough is the new mental disorder of our elite.
Which is why it's better to put the genie back in the bottle like Poland did. Hope Romania follows suit, since it requires an actual vote from the public.
"Onion"... lol. My godfather was a minor celebrity among gays in America. He died of AIDs in '89. At his after funeral dinner. I heard of "gay marriage " for the first time. When I suggested: Get marriage out of government, let people register as a "household" with government to get same secular benefits (probate, power of attorney, etc.,) regardless of sex. For example, an adult chold and a parent, two adult siblings could register like this, etc. Such a change would be something everyone could support, including the heterodox and Orthodox... all the gays looked to their leader, and many expressed their agreement with me. A real "Civil Rights" change. Something all may benefit from. I even said churches here would join them in this effort. Give marriage to the Church and lets do something else secularily. The gay activist leader simply replied: "We want marriage". It's not about human rights. It's about destroying the divine family order God instituted.
God didn’t ordain anything because god doesn’t exist, at least the god of Abraham. It’s so interesting coming to these videos with all the deluded lunatics preaching to the choir. I’m sorry to inform you but the Bible is full of historical and scientific error, that it is not well preserved (particularly the New Testament) and that it is contradictory throughout. Yahweh, the storm deity of the New Testament orders genocide, orders abortion, orders infanticide, condones slavery, both sexual and chattel, makes deals and bets with Satan, and is a disgrace that would fit nicely in the pantheon of the Olympic gods of old. I used to defend this lunacy, this self delusion of the masses, but the truth is what the facts are and Christianity is nothing more than a blood cult that got popular. Nothing more than that.
In then USA, the marriage license was 'invented' in southern states to fight myscegeny, interracial marriage. In the USA, the marriage license is racist. It should be outlawed. The gov has no place being involved in intimate relationships, imho. ❤
Most of them at this point are no different from the East Bloc bullshit you see in countries like Russia and Ukraine, but with the masquerade of being democratic.
On my country it wasn't even the representative oligarchy that introduced gay marriage, but our courts created it without the consent of our Congress. Just that you know how far they will go to achieve their goals, when they dont have the support of the Legislature they will still attempt to illegaly change the law. Also, first our Supreme Court established some semi-marriage thing called "homoaffective stable unions", so we must also notice that their compromises are actually slippery slopes.
@@igorlopes7589 I am glad that your Supreme Court was protecting the wellbeing, rights, and human dignity of people whom you would have consigned to the misery and (emotional, spiritual, and/or physical) death that comes form societal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
@@Queezbo Two men don't need to marry each other to have their well being or human dignity preserved, or to be protected from misery and death. Marriage by definition is a union of man and woman, to allow pseudo-marriages for the sake of feelings is stupid and goes against its purpose.
@@igorlopes7589 Civil marriage is whatever the society defines it to be. It is not a sacrament. And as a societal institution it has been and is defined differently in different cultures. We can talk about how Christians and the Church should define marriage with Christian context, but that does not have much to do with how the atheists next door should be expected to live their lives. They are not contracting a sacrament.
Didn't Serbia and Ireland have a lesbian and gay Prime Minister respectively. In my opinion, the only thing that should be prohibited is adoption for these same sex couples. Those who don't want to change, let them remain but they should not step outside their boundaries and invade the schools with their ideology. Also, the Church should strictly monitor the clergy from performing any sacrilegious ceremonies equivalent to Fiducia Supplicans. As Malachi 2:2 states "I shall curse your blessings."
The only thing I'm fine for those couples is civil unions, since they're secular in nature (just a state contract) and by default it shouldn't allow them to adopt children. Marriage will definitely backfire badly in the future in a country like Greece.
Fiducia isn't sacrilegous, it's just very abusable. The blessings on paper do exist to make them follow the Gospel faithfully, it's literally written there
"Not invade schools with their ideology" not sure what you mean by this, does it mean schools must never touch the subject of homosexuality? Does it just mean not saying whether it is good or bad? Does it just mean no pride celebrations or drag queen story hour? I personally think they should explain what it is and that some people believe it to be wrong and leave it at that. I think there shouldn't be publicly funded lgbt celebrations in schools but if the school insists on having them they should come with permission slip.
The notion of live and let live when it comes to the government is simply not Biblical. The intent is cowardice, the act is morally suspect, and the consequences are devastating to this country. Greece is already at a very low fertility rate and this will accelerate the extinction of the Greek people and their culture while emboldening nearby ancient enemies like the Turks. The reason this is happening is people's love for socialism comes with this inevitable consequence. The people didn't vote for gay marriage, they voted for socialism but everyone knew this would be the result.
In the US we're already seeing people advocating for marriage to minors, poligamy, and even marriage to objects or animals. That's coming soon too, brace yourselves.
I’d love to see any mainstream person advocate for those things in the us. The only people I see really advocating for polygamy are Mormons and Muslims.
Lol. Most of the people who still advocate for child marriage or marrying direct relatives are the ones OPPOSED to gay marriage. You guys really need to stop electing these degenerates.
My grandparents came from Greece. I am absolutely furious over the Greek Government's decision to legalize gay marriage in Greece. Greece made a big mistake here. I was very proud to be Greek and I'm a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian. Fight this!
It is time for the Orthodox churches to completely de-couple from the state (no pun intended). They need to turn round and say they do not recognise the legality of what the state calls a marriage. A result of this is that the Church weddings would always come first (and be of no business of the state) and if couples wanted to register with the state and get legal protection for their union, they could do so secondly. I do think it is weird that we have to register with the state before we can marry in Church. Well I think the State has just lost this privilege.
In then USA, the marriage license was invented by southern states to prevent myscegeny, interracial marriage. It was founded on racism, and the license should be outlawed, imho. The gov should not be involved in intimate matters. ❤
Well, I can understand your viewpoint, but I think it is important that a church ceremony is always accompanied by a secular marriage because in the case of for example infidelity of one marriage partner, the church can only implement religious repercussions, like exclusion from holy communion, but no legal repercussions. The point of a marriage is that two people become one, and the breaking of that union should not come at the expense of one of the partners. I think of a situation like a working man cheats on his stay-at-home wife, if there was “only” a religious marriage, the husband would have no legal obligations towards the wife. Of course this is only a concern in states where a religious ceremony is not automatically a legally binding marriage that is enforced by the government. I live in Germany, and here a marriage ceremony in an orthodox church does not mean you are married “in the eyes of” the government , which is why they only perform the ceremony if there is already a marriage registered with the state authorities. This also ensures that no minors or relatives can get married, because the state already has the administrative capacities to check for such things.
@@MertKabakci The issue is that now the secular definition of marriage is so different from the religious that they can not be equivalated in any way. They need to be totally separated. What the state enshrines is now simply a civil partnership with legal protections and signing up to that is very different to signing up to a Christian marriage. Yes we should do both, but we must turn the vocabulary the state uses against the state and say that we are not talking about the same thing, their marriage is not our marriage.
I strongly sympathise with your Constantinian view of Church and State, but it will never be enough for radical progressives. They will use the legal system and, by extension, lawfare to force Orthodox and other traditional Christian clergy and ministers to perform marriages.
At least the Muslims are Based Their religion literally says that ruling other than Sharia law puts them beyond the pale of Islam and secular Muslims are Apostates by that definition
@RockstarRomania However, the state has routinely interfered with the churches in the USA until cases get to the Supreme Court where in most cases the government gets slapped down by the Justices using the Bill of Rights. My problem is that fake progressives continually force their views on the world and use the separation of church and state as an excuse to ban religion.
Sorry what secular state is forcing clerics to perform same sex marriages? Because I have yet to see this. Sure I would be opposed to this but this is just ridiculous delusions that people like to through out with no cited source.
A member of the Greek government revealed the deepest geopolitical reason behind this bill: As Russia is against same-sex marriage, Greece adopted it to show that it is unlike Russia. Of course, this was not a Greek initiative, it was done after American pressure. 😃
Which Greeks? Have you taken a close look at the Greeks under 40? The streets of Athens are filled with brainwashed, "non-binaries" covered in piercings and tattoos, and "fathers" who dress and act like twelve-year-olds. The Greece that supported the Serbs is a dying memory, and the younger generation is ruled by sick doctrines they learn online. It makese sad. But you must admit that Greece has fallen.
That's not how the Greek consitution begins and Greece doesnt even have a consitution since 1864 because even though the original 1844 consitution prohibited any change to be made to it,ever since 1864 the government has changed the constitution,removed this law of never change and made the consitution more and more liberal and progressive and if that happened once ok,but especially in our day,the Greek government changes the constitution every 10 or 20 years whenever it suits them,infact I just heard on the news the other day that some politicans want to change the constitution again because of some train accident they make a big deal about.
@@linin3288 www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/FEK%20211-A-24-12-2019%20NEO%20SYNTAGMA.pdf Before even the first chapter, the first line of the constitution reads: "Εις το όνομα της Aγίας και Oμοουσίου και Aδιαιρέτου Τριάδος". You may not like the current constitution or you may think that the changes made since year x were unlawful. That's fine. However, this doesn't negate or change the fact that a constitution exists, and that all versions of the constitution begin with the invocation of the Trinity.
I’m of the OPINION (emphasis on OPINION) that at the Last Judgment Christ will take into account societal factors like like raised in a same-sex household or the only people preaching the Gospel were people twisting Scripture to make a fearsome and wrathful God that just can’t wait to burn gays in hell. That’s how the “Christian” private school I went to was and they nearly made me atheist, drove me to seek out Wicca because I sure don’t want to worship and serve a God that’s just wanting to burn me. I praise God daily for the people who God used to keep me tethered to real Christian attitudes and eventually find Orthodoxy.
Do you have the same opinion you had for Catholics 2 months ago? That we should break off communion or maybe I misunderstood. That video came up in my suggested videos after I watched this one and I just watched it.
Also I forgot to mention that there should be no debate whether homosexuality is a Major Sin or not because Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed before Mosaic Law was introduced and New Testament mentions homosexuality multiple times
The New Testament mentions homosexuality ZERO times. The word was only invented about 120 years ago. The word heterosexual came first to describe a condition whereby men had an unnaturally sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Homosexual was countered as an alternative between persons of the same biological sex. Yes people, heterosexuality was a disorder! This disorder has been normalised and that is why we have such trouble understanding scripture. What is mentioned in the New Testament are effeminacy, fornication and sexual acts outside their properly ordered context; in other words affectation and idolatry. The worship of the body , any body's body is idolatry! No need for new categories of sin, if it behaves like idolatry it is idolatry before or after the Mosaic Law. Idolatry will always, by definition move you further away from God, which is basically what sin is.
Homosexuality is uniquely and exclusively an exercise in masturbation and masturbation is an exercise of idolatry, all of which are contrary to tropos in the order of our Union with God.
The debate is the reliability of the Bible for anything, and as it has scientific and historical errors, is self contradictory and is not well preserved, it is of the same use as the Iliad or the plays of Shakespeare to dictate how the modern world should operate.
Marriage can only be between 1 man and 1 woman. That being said, denying some of the rights associated with marriage to a homosexual couple, like, say, visitation rights, if one of them is dying in the hospital, seems needlessly cruel.
@@ryoka7 yup. Marriage is a social contract between people. Simple as a that. There is nothing divine about it at all. It’s used for convenience and a contract of commitment, nothing more nothing less.
What do you think about a solution where the state does not define marriage but only ensures respect for contracts that people conclude? Including civil partnership contracts and similar contracts. It is only controversial when the state does something. When some church allow it, then there is less controversial. Because the state gives privileges to some unions. Which makes sense when society has one idea about relationships. But in the absence of such an idea, any change in power threatens to change the concept of marriage. After all, could a politician with such an opinion be orthodox?
I think Greek should no longer officially call itself an Orthodox country. Make it secular again since it is causing harm to the name of our faith. The only country that has a government that respects its Orthodox traditions and tries to preserve it is Russia and even they don't have Eastern Orthodoxy as their official religion.
Too bad that government inside is composed of the business as usual occultists from the Soviet era. I can't trust a state like Russia with its century long devotion towards occultism. Funny how you don't mention countries like Romania and Bulgaria, both being as far as my knowledge the most Christian countries in all of Europe by the number of people practicing.
But they have abortion. And hight abortion, divorce and alkoholic rates. And red stars and Sowiet generals pictures in Patryjarszyj sobor. Moreover, the aggressive policy gives the impression that Orthodoxy is first Russian and secondly universal - only when you share Russian views on the political order. So I am glad that they don't have Orthodoxy as official religion.
I used to share John Green's opinion and to an extent I still do that gay marriage is inevitable unless you're throwing gays off roofs a gay person can say "I'll stand by you if you stand by me" regardless of what the state thinks. However I asked the question what is marriage for, and came to the conclusion that it's for the production of families. Now I don't think it rules out gay marriage necessarily because they can adopt. But I had some misgivings about if it's good for kids not to have a parent of both sexes. That being said even gay parents are probably better than an orphanage. So I'm not sure what to think about gay adoption.
why do most orphans exist? whorish women who couldnt provide and care for a child, the same people that push our women into this vile condition push gay adoption. if we got rid of these people we would not have either of these problems!
Our government (or well, mostly the party that rules us) even organized a party in "honor" of this bill. And guess what, it was the only celebration they ever did in the history of greek politics. Here's what I think though, Greece might be the first, but unfortunately not the last orthodox country to legalize same sex marriage and adoptions. Many orthodox countries in the EU will follow, sooner or later. It's all part of the EU to westernize its members and distance them from culture for Globalization's sake. I'm afraid that Cyprus will be next, considering that they are greeks and have close ties with their ancestral homeland. I want my fellow orthodox brothers and sisters to understand that the government made the choice and not the people. Greeks protested a day before the bill passed. We are not westerners, only the government is. In fact, we are the exact opposite of what the government believes. They are against Russia, we are with Russia. They are pro-LGBT, we are against it. They are pro-westernization, we are against it. Sure not all greeks agree, especially Athenians, but generally we are like this on many issues. I hope things go well in the future for all of us.
Whatever your opinion on this law is, I’m disappointed in all of my fellow Greeks who want to push christian values in the legal space in Greece and are now making a big fuss and beating their bibles, but I never saw them making such a big uproar for the abortion and legal prostitution, which are more shameful and have existed for much longer. A lot of countries are like that, when it comes to the old vices that everyone’s comfortable with, eh it’s ok, but when it’s something different then all the cultural christians start appealing to God.
@@posavka it’s the only reading you can logically make with it. It’s black magic for god to induce a miscarriage (aka an abortion), but if you think god controls the universe, then every miscarriage is a divinely induced abortion. The whole Christian religion is a blood magic cult. The Bible is a primitive contradictory and malevolent text largely about a wrathful storm deity Yahweh. Not much of value of anything apart from anthropology and an insight into our more primitive mind as a species. But it doesn’t confer truth.
The Government should not be involved in Marriage at all, but that ship has long sailed. Funny how the whole debate on the secular side assumes such things as the definition of Marriage are capable of change. Greece ought to remove the cross from their flag.
I agree with you, except the first point. Because if there is no government involvement in marriages, it becomes difficult to enforce any legal obligations that should come with a marriage. It is also more difficult for the church to verify age or check if the marriage partners are too close relatives.
@@MertKabakci Not to be mean or contradictory (Jay Dyer Style - I'm not trying to be mean), but why are LEGAL (Government-based and granted and protected) obligations attached to marriage at all? First they create the problem and then they tell us to solve it? Nah, bee. I just "reject your entire hypothesis."
@@justian1772 there is legal benefits (e.g. lower taxes etc.) for married couples because they are more beneficial to society. That is why the state has interest in people being married. However, the legal obligations are there to first and foremost to protect the weaker (most of the time the wife and children) members of a family. In the case of divorce, e.g. the man cheats on his wife. Religious sanctions follow (exclusion from the Eucharist etc.) but the church does not have any authority to make him pay alimony and child support to the family he has left. So my argument is basically that: 1. The state has and should be involved in marriages, because it is of collective interest for society that there are more (successful) marriages and 2. That churches do not have any other way to sanction infidelity or other undesired circumstances in the marriage (domestic abuse etc.) except to impose religious sanctions
@@MertKabakci tl/dr I believe that the benefits provided are traps that do not help either husband or wife. For example, alimony payments are only useful when divorce is possible. Now that The State has decided married families are not in their interest, they've started taking away things they'd given before. My argument is that it was never theirs to give. A strong community and Church family would fill in the empty spot left by a man who not only left his family but is excommunicated (thus very disadvantaged spiritually and socially). I realize that in our reality this is close to impossible but a man can dream. Discussing the benefits the state can provide is thus counter productive in my eyes.
It seems to me that democracy is failing on a large scale because it is too easily influenced by big money {unrestrained capitalism}, or at least it seems that way in the western model. Maybe on a small scale it works. But what is the alternative? I agree that monarchism isn't workable either, it tends to morph into totalitarianism. So what is the alternative?
Agreed! But I would add that maybe, just to get a wider scope, look at Trump as not the people who follow him and not the things the media rants about (again, that’s a directed form of “democracy”), but from his intentions and his walk of what he already did. Don’t read the clearly oriented articles, watch ONE rally. Let me know your thoughts!
Please explain this to me: Leviticus 18:22 has been translated in common English versions as: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
You have to clear out some concepts! I oppose ANY provision towards same sex communities. There is NO compromise with evil. Your stance is not Orthodox!
Hetero-Polygamy is more historically biblical than Homo-monogamy. It sounds like you consider plural marriage a step further from the Edenic ideal than “gay marriage.” God was happy to bless many second -wives with children. We need to be consistent even where it’s awkward. And I’m open to being told where I’m wrong on this.
Genesis 2:24 says the man and his wife become one flesh. Marriage is only meant for 1 man and 1 woman, and everything else is an abomination. The Bible records polygamy, but it doesn’t say it’s good.
it was not done out of “oh it’s great and holy to have lots of wives”, no but it was a compromise for what would’ve been widows/(young adult) orphaned woman going into slavery and prostitution or being left to starve/marry outside of the faith etc etc. it is not part of the original plan of marriage but it was granted in the early times out of love to protect the women who would’ve been in ancient societies left to die a beggar or a slave, essentially. I assume that you’re not really familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy. Only midwestern largely American produced free denominational or baptist cults hold this view that polygamy was encouraged or approved, not the original church, or to their credit, big denominations like RC, classic Lutherians and anglicans.
@@posavka I actually am familiar with Orthodoxy. An EO priest was a strong influence on me in college. I am not saying it’s optimal. I am saying that, for the reasons you gave in your response, it’s a tolerable compromise that has biblical precedent. I would hope that society can survive without sub-standard family structures, but I don’t think we can say that it’s a “never again” thing. The abundant welfare-state economies we have now may be a blip in history and not permanent. We also may have to choose between “primitive” Judeo-Christian practices and “modern” homosexual partnerships. Especially in the case of adoption, I have trouble seeing monogamous gay parenting being better for children than a mom and dad and extra mom. To re-emphasize: I’m not promoting this outright, but as a “lesser evil.” I do have a bias that I grew up around secret Mormon polygamists and saw that they turned out fine, and I could even see that through my extreme prejudice against their religion and that practice. Compared to what is happening to children now, non-ideal marriages bother me less than almost any other issue Christians have an opinion about. And I do believe that raising children poorly is a crisis as serious as the excuses for polygamy you listed for the biblical examples. One other thing I should add because it always comes up in this discussion: I am not in the position to take on multiple wives and have no interest. Most women don’t want to share a husband. I wouldn’t want my daughter or son to engage in a plural marriage. But I feel no conviction to stop others from doing so in light of the other sexual and “marriage” arrangements that western culture is engaging in. And I think that we shouldn’t lump “gay marriage” in with “plural marriage” when discussing theology. The Bible treats them differently, so we should too.
"Hetero-Polygamy" was a part of the old covenant, not the new covenant. And Polygamy was only acceptable during first temple Judaism, not second temple Judaism.
@@EasternRomanAficionado It was never acceptable, Genesis makes it clear marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s recorded to have happened like with Solomon and David but it wasn’t right.
nope, orthodoxy is. Check out CIRA international, pfandefilms, brother Mel, Sam Shamoun, Nabil Asli, Give light and many others that will be recommended in the video suggestions going forward. I guarantee if you watch their videos you will either leave islam simply an apostate or a christian.
unpopular take but i think its way better for a child to be raised by two people with income(same sex or not) that are willing to raise it then to be aborted or raised in social centers (which you know is the most evil system in our country Bojan). We christians as mostly prolife community should be more active in improving foster care systems (that includes allowing same sex couples to take care of abandoned children) otherwise its simple hypocrisy.
Adoption must always be centered around what is best for the child, the child (not the adults) must remain the client. Same sex parents are better than no parents, and perhaps better than even single parents. But there is a still a hierarchy of what is optimal for the child and same sex couples cannot be at the top because they are suboptimal to opposite sex couples. An orphan is a child who has lost both his/her mother and father, same sex couples cannot compensate for the child's loss to the same degree that opposite sex couples can.
I agree, I see too many people trying to frame arguments in terms of worst case scenario and what they are of the opinion of would be better than a worse case scenario. How about we just start looking at best case scenario and looking to accommodate based on that? It's like saying it would be better to have your arm cut off then die but if there's no necessity to cut someone's arm off why even create such a dichotomy to argue over?
You speak about consequences, Pandora's box etc. Is is okay to have your views, but keep in mind you need some evidence for what you are suggesting, feelings are just feelings. No scientific paper show any consequences for children and all the other you mentioned..
Well there are plenty of research papers which suggest that Children who were brought up by Two parents(male and female) are doing better in literaly every measurment you could imagine, also lots of scientific studies show that having mother and father is crucial for healthy development. Therfore you can Logicly conclude that growing up in same-sex household shouldn’t be ideal for children to say the least
It is the height of religious arrogance to dictate to the _secular_ state how _secular_ , _civil_ marriage has to look like. Religion has _no_ right to dictate secular government. The "marriage" of religion and power has always been an unholy union.
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus excommunicated those MPs who voted for gay marriage. God will not be mocked.
Meanwhile, in the Catholic Church they'll one day excommunicate priests for opposing Fiducia Supplicans and refusing to bless same sex couples
W
Unfathomable levels of epic.
@@Bruh-kc3lp W
What's the problem with those who want gay marriage. Just mind your business
Boyan, As a Greek Orthodox Christian I am very disappointed in Greece 😔
As an American who isn’t Greek but also Orthodox. I 💯 agree with you. And I disagree with their move on this. 🤦♂️ 😔
Why do you hate human rights?
@@qwertyTRiG God commanded man and woman to procreate and fill the Earth.
Contrary to that commandment it's sin and disobedience to the Creator except being celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven and becoming monk/priest.
Also, no one spoke of hate for the human rights here in this part of comment section except you.
Blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ to you and peace.
@@silvio1894 And why should I care about your imaginary friend?
@@qwertyTRiGYou're just asserting that God is imaginary, which isn't an argument. It's a fallacy.
Orthodox Banter with Bojan: You can’t baptize a nation, you can’t baptize a state
Prince Vladimir of Rus in 988: “WATCH AND LEARN”
If it's a democracy you can't, if it's a monarchy you can.
St. Vladimir the Great pray for us
That is one of the reasons their Christianity is fake.
I am a girl and I did feel a few times attraction towards other girls, but I never thought anything more about it than "simple crushes". I did not think I am a lesbian or bisexual, or that I should change my entire beliefs based on that. I simply let them pass and moved on with my life. Just another temptation in my road towards God.
That was you and your experience. But your experience is not the same as that of thousands and thousands of other people. Everybody has passing phases, but not everybody is gay.
@@Queezbo did I say any different? I shared my experience, I did not talk about anybody else
It is the same in essence though the reason people think they are gay is because they have sexual thoughts and temptations and then they refer to others and are told its good to be ‘who they are’ or they are met with hostility and shield their temptations even more. Just because you feel someway doesn’t mean you should do it or identify as it. And the orthodox belief is that all sexual temptation whether straight or gay is sin and shouldn’t be accepted as a good thing. Also no hate please don’t make angry reply let’s have a civil discussion.🙏
@@jojadoom why would I hate on this? I agree with you, except my temptations weren't "sexual". Just because I found girls attractive (like 2% of my crushes were girls, the rest were guys) doesn't mean it was sexual.
@@ileanagheorghisor True, you didn't. But in the context (the comments to a particular video) your statement naturally could become part of the narrative "all gay people just got fixated on a phase that would have passed if they just let it." And that narrative is false, and I will correct it wherever I find it, because it leads to various forms of death. I wasn't really reacting to you, but to the whole picture.
My personal conspiracy theory is that politicians purposefully choose topics such as gay marriage, LGBTQ and such only to distract voters from truly important topics politicians don't want or don't have a solution for. Our society is overly obsessed on these topics, on both sides of the political spectrum.
I agree to some extent. However, it is easy for the elite to focus on nonsense because addressing real problems would require them to do real work. For example, the elite go bannans over the CO2 cows produce but could care less about the tons of CO2 their private jets produce. As far as sex issues go, leave it for the bedroom and keep it out of the public forum. Humanity got along just fine when marriage was traditional. The WHO classified what is now called normal as a mental condition, but now everything goes. The elite like this because they are perverted and, in most cases have a true mental issue. Too much and never enough is the new mental disorder of our elite.
Which is why it's better to put the genie back in the bottle like Poland did. Hope Romania follows suit, since it requires an actual vote from the public.
Yeah, like, the economy stupid!
These are important topics though.
I have heard it referred to as majoring in the minors.
"Onion"... lol. My godfather was a minor celebrity among gays in America. He died of AIDs in '89. At his after funeral dinner. I heard of "gay marriage " for the first time.
When I suggested:
Get marriage out of government, let people register as a "household" with government to get same secular benefits (probate, power of attorney, etc.,) regardless of sex.
For example, an adult chold and a parent, two adult siblings could register like this, etc. Such a change would be something everyone could support, including the heterodox and Orthodox... all the gays looked to their leader, and many expressed their agreement with me. A real "Civil Rights" change. Something all may benefit from. I even said churches here would join them in this effort. Give marriage to the Church and lets do something else secularily. The gay activist leader simply replied: "We want marriage".
It's not about human rights. It's about destroying the divine family order God instituted.
God didn’t ordain anything because god doesn’t exist, at least the god of Abraham. It’s so interesting coming to these videos with all the deluded lunatics preaching to the choir. I’m sorry to inform you but the Bible is full of historical and scientific error, that it is not well preserved (particularly the New Testament) and that it is contradictory throughout. Yahweh, the storm deity of the New Testament orders genocide, orders abortion, orders infanticide, condones slavery, both sexual and chattel, makes deals and bets with Satan, and is a disgrace that would fit nicely in the pantheon of the Olympic gods of old. I used to defend this lunacy, this self delusion of the masses, but the truth is what the facts are and Christianity is nothing more than a blood cult that got popular. Nothing more than that.
Yeah this makes sense.
In then USA, the marriage license was 'invented' in southern states to fight myscegeny, interracial marriage. In the USA, the marriage license is racist. It should be outlawed. The gov has no place being involved in intimate relationships, imho. ❤
Most countries in Europe are going through below replacement birth rates. and I do not want to give any other argument.
High Alcohol and Smoking rates also contribute to this
@@TheUniversalPrincess to what? to lower birth rates?
@@xrkalix No, I'm just stating the main reasons for birth defects that led to abortion
Hardly any abortions are about that, it is mostly a method of contraception.
we are talking about LGBT and birth rate. it is anti family stuff.
Most "democratic" countries are better described as representative oligarchies. It's clear that we're not allowed to vote on certain issues anymore.
Most of them at this point are no different from the East Bloc bullshit you see in countries like Russia and Ukraine, but with the masquerade of being democratic.
On my country it wasn't even the representative oligarchy that introduced gay marriage, but our courts created it without the consent of our Congress. Just that you know how far they will go to achieve their goals, when they dont have the support of the Legislature they will still attempt to illegaly change the law.
Also, first our Supreme Court established some semi-marriage thing called "homoaffective stable unions", so we must also notice that their compromises are actually slippery slopes.
@@igorlopes7589 I am glad that your Supreme Court was protecting the wellbeing, rights, and human dignity of people whom you would have consigned to the misery and (emotional, spiritual, and/or physical) death that comes form societal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
@@Queezbo Two men don't need to marry each other to have their well being or human dignity preserved, or to be protected from misery and death.
Marriage by definition is a union of man and woman, to allow pseudo-marriages for the sake of feelings is stupid and goes against its purpose.
@@igorlopes7589 Civil marriage is whatever the society defines it to be. It is not a sacrament. And as a societal institution it has been and is defined differently in different cultures. We can talk about how Christians and the Church should define marriage with Christian context, but that does not have much to do with how the atheists next door should be expected to live their lives. They are not contracting a sacrament.
As greek, I'm really deeply ashamed of this country.
Didn't Serbia and Ireland have a lesbian and gay Prime Minister respectively.
In my opinion, the only thing that should be prohibited is adoption for these same sex couples. Those who don't want to change, let them remain but they should not step outside their boundaries and invade the schools with their ideology.
Also, the Church should strictly monitor the clergy from performing any sacrilegious ceremonies equivalent to Fiducia Supplicans. As Malachi 2:2 states "I shall curse your blessings."
Good luck with that.
The only thing I'm fine for those couples is civil unions, since they're secular in nature (just a state contract) and by default it shouldn't allow them to adopt children. Marriage will definitely backfire badly in the future in a country like Greece.
@@RockstarRomania Less than 1% marriages are same sex so why even marry when they are already staying together
Fiducia isn't sacrilegous, it's just very abusable. The blessings on paper do exist to make them follow the Gospel faithfully, it's literally written there
"Not invade schools with their ideology" not sure what you mean by this, does it mean schools must never touch the subject of homosexuality? Does it just mean not saying whether it is good or bad? Does it just mean no pride celebrations or drag queen story hour? I personally think they should explain what it is and that some people believe it to be wrong and leave it at that. I think there shouldn't be publicly funded lgbt celebrations in schools but if the school insists on having them they should come with permission slip.
The notion of live and let live when it comes to the government is simply not Biblical. The intent is cowardice, the act is morally suspect, and the consequences are devastating to this country. Greece is already at a very low fertility rate and this will accelerate the extinction of the Greek people and their culture while emboldening nearby ancient enemies like the Turks. The reason this is happening is people's love for socialism comes with this inevitable consequence. The people didn't vote for gay marriage, they voted for socialism but everyone knew this would be the result.
In the US we're already seeing people advocating for marriage to minors, poligamy, and even marriage to objects or animals. That's coming soon too, brace yourselves.
I’d love to see any mainstream person advocate for those things in the us. The only people I see really advocating for polygamy are Mormons and Muslims.
Lol. Most of the people who still advocate for child marriage or marrying direct relatives are the ones OPPOSED to gay marriage. You guys really need to stop electing these degenerates.
My grandparents came from Greece. I am absolutely furious over the Greek Government's decision to legalize gay marriage in Greece. Greece made a big mistake here. I was very proud to be Greek and I'm a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian. Fight this!
So you're an American pretending to be Greek?
@@qwertyTRiG No, Kasselakis is. Our newest gay proggressive politician sent my mommy America!
It is time for the Orthodox churches to completely de-couple from the state (no pun intended). They need to turn round and say they do not recognise the legality of what the state calls a marriage. A result of this is that the Church weddings would always come first (and be of no business of the state) and if couples wanted to register with the state and get legal protection for their union, they could do so secondly. I do think it is weird that we have to register with the state before we can marry in Church. Well I think the State has just lost this privilege.
In then USA, the marriage license was invented by southern states to prevent myscegeny, interracial marriage.
It was founded on racism, and the license should be outlawed, imho. The gov should not be involved in intimate matters.
❤
Well, I can understand your viewpoint, but I think it is important that a church ceremony is always accompanied by a secular marriage because in the case of for example infidelity of one marriage partner, the church can only implement religious repercussions, like exclusion from holy communion, but no legal repercussions.
The point of a marriage is that two people become one, and the breaking of that union should not come at the expense of one of the partners.
I think of a situation like a working man cheats on his stay-at-home wife, if there was “only” a religious marriage, the husband would have no legal obligations towards the wife.
Of course this is only a concern in states where a religious ceremony is not automatically a legally binding marriage that is enforced by the government.
I live in Germany, and here a marriage ceremony in an orthodox church does not mean you are married “in the eyes of” the government , which is why they only perform the ceremony if there is already a marriage registered with the state authorities.
This also ensures that no minors or relatives can get married, because the state already has the administrative capacities to check for such things.
@@MertKabakci The issue is that now the secular definition of marriage is so different from the religious that they can not be equivalated in any way. They need to be totally separated. What the state enshrines is now simply a civil partnership with legal protections and signing up to that is very different to signing up to a Christian marriage. Yes we should do both, but we must turn the vocabulary the state uses against the state and say that we are not talking about the same thing, their marriage is not our marriage.
@@gillianc6514 I could not agree more.
I strongly sympathise with your Constantinian view of Church and State, but it will never be enough for radical progressives. They will use the legal system and, by extension, lawfare to force Orthodox and other traditional Christian clergy and ministers to perform marriages.
Which on its own is a blatant violation on the separation of the State and the Chruch.
At least the Muslims are Based
Their religion literally says that ruling other than Sharia law puts them beyond the pale of Islam and secular Muslims are Apostates by that definition
@RockstarRomania However, the state has routinely interfered with the churches in the USA until cases get to the Supreme Court where in most cases the government gets slapped down by the Justices using the Bill of Rights. My problem is that fake progressives continually force their views on the world and use the separation of church and state as an excuse to ban religion.
Sorry what secular state is forcing clerics to perform same sex marriages? Because I have yet to see this. Sure I would be opposed to this but this is just ridiculous delusions that people like to through out with no cited source.
A member of the Greek government revealed the deepest geopolitical reason behind this bill: As Russia is against same-sex marriage, Greece adopted it to show that it is unlike Russia. Of course, this was not a Greek initiative, it was done after American pressure. 😃
Yeah well..Wrong move.
And we greeks are the exact opposite of the government. We love russia
Which Greeks? Have you taken a close look at the Greeks under 40? The streets of Athens are filled with brainwashed, "non-binaries" covered in piercings and tattoos, and "fathers" who dress and act like twelve-year-olds. The Greece that supported the Serbs is a dying memory, and the younger generation is ruled by sick doctrines they learn online. It makese sad. But you must admit that Greece has fallen.
"In the name of the Holy and Homoousios and Undivisible Trinity" That's exactly how the Greek constitution begins.
That's not how the Greek consitution begins and Greece doesnt even have a consitution since 1864 because even though the original 1844 consitution prohibited any change to be made to it,ever since 1864 the government has changed the constitution,removed this law of never change and made the consitution more and more liberal and progressive and if that happened once ok,but especially in our day,the Greek government changes the constitution every 10 or 20 years whenever it suits them,infact I just heard on the news the other day that some politicans want to change the constitution again because of some train accident they make a big deal about.
@@linin3288 www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/FEK%20211-A-24-12-2019%20NEO%20SYNTAGMA.pdf
Before even the first chapter, the first line of the constitution reads:
"Εις το όνομα της Aγίας και Oμοουσίου και Aδιαιρέτου Τριάδος". You may not like the current constitution or you may think that the changes made since year x were unlawful. That's fine. However, this doesn't negate or change the fact that a constitution exists, and that all versions of the constitution begin with the invocation of the Trinity.
@linin3288 You can literally download it online, and it says about the Holy Trinity before stating the laws
@@linin3288 Why are you lying? That is exactly how the Greek Constitution begins.
This is a disgrace and a mockery. God help us to solve this issue and restore the nation of Greece.
Its just weddings.
@@Quint-ib4nf *Gay weddings and that's the issue.
@@tbnrcreator.official They are great though.
Reader Bojan, I think you've hit the nail on the head yet again. 100% agree with everything you've said here.
Father forgive them they know not what they do
why do you have a comunist devil as pb?
@@meandros1678 its a picture of a russian soviet soldier who fought with nazis. He's not a devil, he defeated him.
@@beznikneimaInteresting, who is he?
@@colmcille9669I forget the name but he was an artillery sergeant who became popular a few years ago for his dashing good looks
@@meandros1678not everyone in the red army was a communist
I have a feeling it would backfire badly in the future.
I’m of the OPINION (emphasis on OPINION) that at the Last Judgment Christ will take into account societal factors like like raised in a same-sex household or the only people preaching the Gospel were people twisting Scripture to make a fearsome and wrathful God that just can’t wait to burn gays in hell. That’s how the “Christian” private school I went to was and they nearly made me atheist, drove me to seek out Wicca because I sure don’t want to worship and serve a God that’s just wanting to burn me. I praise God daily for the people who God used to keep me tethered to real Christian attitudes and eventually find Orthodoxy.
Do you have the same opinion you had for Catholics 2 months ago? That we should break off communion or maybe I misunderstood. That video came up in my suggested videos after I watched this one and I just watched it.
This is a state issue, not a Church issue (as is was with Catholics)
Thank you@@BanterWithBojan
Who is in communion with catholicism?
@@TranslatedAssumptionWell Catholic just means universal, if you mean the Roman "Catholic" church, pretty much just other Roman Catholics.
Also I forgot to mention that there should be no debate whether homosexuality is a Major Sin or not because Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed before Mosaic Law was introduced and New Testament mentions homosexuality multiple times
The New Testament mentions homosexuality ZERO times. The word was only invented about 120 years ago. The word heterosexual came first to describe a condition whereby men had an unnaturally sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Homosexual was countered as an alternative between persons of the same biological sex. Yes people, heterosexuality was a disorder! This disorder has been normalised and that is why we have such trouble understanding scripture. What is mentioned in the New Testament are effeminacy, fornication and sexual acts outside their properly ordered context; in other words affectation and idolatry. The worship of the body , any body's body is idolatry! No need for new categories of sin, if it behaves like idolatry it is idolatry before or after the Mosaic Law. Idolatry will always, by definition move you further away from God, which is basically what sin is.
Homosexuality is uniquely and exclusively an exercise in masturbation and masturbation is an exercise of idolatry, all of which are contrary to tropos in the order of our Union with God.
The debate is the reliability of the Bible for anything, and as it has scientific and historical errors, is self contradictory and is not well preserved, it is of the same use as the Iliad or the plays of Shakespeare to dictate how the modern world should operate.
@@MB-nx9tq 🤓Go back to China
Marriage can only be between 1 man and 1 woman.
That being said, denying some of the rights associated with marriage to a homosexual couple, like, say, visitation rights, if one of them is dying in the hospital, seems needlessly cruel.
But that's not a marriage issue, that's a next of kin issue.
Marriage has included polygamous and homosexual unions, and today is no different.
It’s not a marriage, so it should not be treated as a marriage.
@@MB-nx9tqNo it hasn't and no it doesn't
@@ryoka7 yup. Marriage is a social contract between people. Simple as a that. There is nothing divine about it at all. It’s used for convenience and a contract of commitment, nothing more nothing less.
What do you think about a solution where the state does not define marriage but only ensures respect for contracts that people conclude? Including civil partnership contracts and similar contracts.
It is only controversial when the state does something. When some church allow it, then there is less controversial. Because the state gives privileges to some unions. Which makes sense when society has one idea about relationships. But in the absence of such an idea, any change in power threatens to change the concept of marriage.
After all, could a politician with such an opinion be orthodox?
I think Greek should no longer officially call itself an Orthodox country. Make it secular again since it is causing harm to the name of our faith. The only country that has a government that respects its Orthodox traditions and tries to preserve it is Russia and even they don't have Eastern Orthodoxy as their official religion.
Too bad that government inside is composed of the business as usual occultists from the Soviet era. I can't trust a state like Russia with its century long devotion towards occultism.
Funny how you don't mention countries like Romania and Bulgaria, both being as far as my knowledge the most Christian countries in all of Europe by the number of people practicing.
But they have abortion. And hight abortion, divorce and alkoholic rates.
And red stars and Sowiet generals pictures in Patryjarszyj sobor.
Moreover, the aggressive policy gives the impression that Orthodoxy is first Russian and secondly universal - only when you share Russian views on the political order.
So I am glad that they don't have Orthodoxy as official religion.
@@polemizator723 plus HIV/AIDS rates rivaling the third world.
I would say no modern state has been able to hold up to the church.
@@bobbobb4804 LMAO true
I used to share John Green's opinion and to an extent I still do that gay marriage is inevitable unless you're throwing gays off roofs a gay person can say "I'll stand by you if you stand by me" regardless of what the state thinks. However I asked the question what is marriage for, and came to the conclusion that it's for the production of families. Now I don't think it rules out gay marriage necessarily because they can adopt. But I had some misgivings about if it's good for kids not to have a parent of both sexes. That being said even gay parents are probably better than an orphanage. So I'm not sure what to think about gay adoption.
why do most orphans exist? whorish women who couldnt provide and care for a child, the same people that push our women into this vile condition push gay adoption.
if we got rid of these people we would not have either of these problems!
Just heard about this.
Our government (or well, mostly the party that rules us) even organized a party in "honor" of this bill.
And guess what, it was the only celebration they ever did in the history of greek politics.
Here's what I think though, Greece might be the first, but unfortunately not the last orthodox country to legalize same sex marriage and adoptions. Many orthodox countries in the EU will follow, sooner or later. It's all part of the EU to westernize its members and distance them from culture for Globalization's sake. I'm afraid that Cyprus will be next, considering that they are greeks and have close ties with their ancestral homeland.
I want my fellow orthodox brothers and sisters to understand that the government made the choice and not the people. Greeks protested a day before the bill passed. We are not westerners, only the government is. In fact, we are the exact opposite of what the government believes. They are against Russia, we are with Russia. They are pro-LGBT, we are against it. They are pro-westernization, we are against it. Sure not all greeks agree, especially Athenians, but generally we are like this on many issues. I hope things go well in the future for all of us.
The Fall of Greek Civilization Part 2 : The Gender Theory Boogaloo
Whatever your opinion on this law is, I’m disappointed in all of my fellow Greeks who want to push christian values in the legal space in Greece and are now making a big fuss and beating their bibles, but I never saw them making such a big uproar for the abortion and legal prostitution, which are more shameful and have existed for much longer.
A lot of countries are like that, when it comes to the old vices that everyone’s comfortable with, eh it’s ok, but when it’s something different then all the cultural christians start appealing to God.
If they stood up against abortion this wouldn't be happening rn
What’s even more ironic is that the Bible itself permits abortion for unfaithful women.
@@MB-nx9tqit literally does not, that interpretation is of surface level reading of scripture.
@@posavka it’s the only reading you can logically make with it. It’s black magic for god to induce a miscarriage (aka an abortion), but if you think god controls the universe, then every miscarriage is a divinely induced abortion. The whole Christian religion is a blood magic cult. The Bible is a primitive contradictory and malevolent text largely about a wrathful storm deity Yahweh. Not much of value of anything apart from anthropology and an insight into our more primitive mind as a species. But it doesn’t confer truth.
God this creator must have some crazy strict restrictions on comments…
The Government should not be involved in Marriage at all, but that ship has long sailed. Funny how the whole debate on the secular side assumes such things as the definition of Marriage are capable of change. Greece ought to remove the cross from their flag.
I agree with you, except the first point.
Because if there is no government involvement in marriages, it becomes difficult to enforce any legal obligations that should come with a marriage.
It is also more difficult for the church to verify age or check if the marriage partners are too close relatives.
@@MertKabakci Not to be mean or contradictory (Jay Dyer Style - I'm not trying to be mean), but why are LEGAL (Government-based and granted and protected) obligations attached to marriage at all? First they create the problem and then they tell us to solve it? Nah, bee. I just "reject your entire hypothesis."
@@justian1772 there is legal benefits (e.g. lower taxes etc.) for married couples because they are more beneficial to society. That is why the state has interest in people being married.
However, the legal obligations are there to first and foremost to protect the weaker (most of the time the wife and children) members of a family.
In the case of divorce, e.g. the man cheats on his wife. Religious sanctions follow (exclusion from the Eucharist etc.) but the church does not have any authority to make him pay alimony and child support to the family he has left.
So my argument is basically that:
1. The state has and should be involved in marriages, because it is of collective interest for society that there are more (successful) marriages
and 2. That churches do not have any other way to sanction infidelity or other undesired circumstances in the marriage (domestic abuse etc.) except to impose religious sanctions
@@MertKabakci tl/dr I believe that the benefits provided are traps that do not help either husband or wife. For example, alimony payments are only useful when divorce is possible. Now that The State has decided married families are not in their interest, they've started taking away things they'd given before. My argument is that it was never theirs to give. A strong community and Church family would fill in the empty spot left by a man who not only left his family but is excommunicated (thus very disadvantaged spiritually and socially). I realize that in our reality this is close to impossible but a man can dream. Discussing the benefits the state can provide is thus counter productive in my eyes.
It seems to me that democracy is failing on a large scale because it is too easily influenced by big money {unrestrained capitalism}, or at least it seems that way in the western model. Maybe on a small scale it works. But what is the alternative? I agree that monarchism isn't workable either, it tends to morph into totalitarianism. So what is the alternative?
Entirely agreed -- from the representative Republic of the USA! 🤗🙏🕯️☦️
Vast majority of greeks do not agree
Grik is gey 💯
Agreed! But I would add that maybe, just to get a wider scope, look at Trump as not the people who follow him and not the things the media rants about (again, that’s a directed form of “democracy”), but from his intentions and his walk of what he already did. Don’t read the clearly oriented articles, watch ONE rally. Let me know your thoughts!
Where is he at?
Dubai
@@BanterWithBojan Wow!
@@BanterWithBojanhow come?
@@Nuruddunya they pay better 😂
Please explain this to me:
Leviticus 18:22 has been translated in common English versions as: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
don't understand what am I supposed to explain?
Bible included chattel slavery,
Leviticus 25:44-46,
Peter 2:18
Colossians 3:22
Deutronomy 20:11
Exodus 21:20-21
Exodus 21:2-7
Ephesians 6:5
😅nothing new under the sun. Bible mentions many who were homosexual
You have to clear out some concepts!
I oppose ANY provision towards same sex communities. There is NO compromise with evil.
Your stance is not Orthodox!
First!
nice
Well greece is a hell hole
0:19 should have kept them in the closet.
Hetero-Polygamy is more historically biblical than Homo-monogamy. It sounds like you consider plural marriage a step further from the Edenic ideal than “gay marriage.” God was happy to bless many second -wives with children.
We need to be consistent even where it’s awkward.
And I’m open to being told where I’m wrong on this.
Genesis 2:24 says the man and his wife become one flesh. Marriage is only meant for 1 man and 1 woman, and everything else is an abomination.
The Bible records polygamy, but it doesn’t say it’s good.
it was not done out of “oh it’s great and holy to have lots of wives”, no but it was a compromise for what would’ve been widows/(young adult) orphaned woman going into slavery and prostitution or being left to starve/marry outside of the faith etc etc. it is not part of the original plan of marriage but it was granted in the early times out of love to protect the women who would’ve been in ancient societies left to die a beggar or a slave, essentially. I assume that you’re not really familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy. Only midwestern largely American produced free denominational or baptist cults hold this view that polygamy was encouraged or approved, not the original church, or to their credit, big denominations like RC, classic Lutherians and anglicans.
@@posavka I actually am familiar with Orthodoxy. An EO priest was a strong influence on me in college.
I am not saying it’s optimal. I am saying that, for the reasons you gave in your response, it’s a tolerable compromise that has biblical precedent. I would hope that society can survive without sub-standard family structures, but I don’t think we can say that it’s a “never again” thing. The abundant welfare-state economies we have now may be a blip in history and not permanent. We also may have to choose between “primitive” Judeo-Christian practices and “modern” homosexual partnerships. Especially in the case of adoption, I have trouble seeing monogamous gay parenting being better for children than a mom and dad and extra mom.
To re-emphasize: I’m not promoting this outright, but as a “lesser evil.”
I do have a bias that I grew up around secret Mormon polygamists and saw that they turned out fine, and I could even see that through my extreme prejudice against their religion and that practice. Compared to what is happening to children now, non-ideal marriages bother me less than almost any other issue Christians have an opinion about. And I do believe that raising children poorly is a crisis as serious as the excuses for polygamy you listed for the biblical examples.
One other thing I should add because it always comes up in this discussion: I am not in the position to take on multiple wives and have no interest. Most women don’t want to share a husband. I wouldn’t want my daughter or son to engage in a plural marriage. But I feel no conviction to stop others from doing so in light of the other sexual and “marriage” arrangements that western culture is engaging in.
And I think that we shouldn’t lump “gay marriage” in with “plural marriage” when discussing theology. The Bible treats them differently, so we should too.
"Hetero-Polygamy" was a part of the old covenant, not the new covenant. And Polygamy was only acceptable during first temple Judaism, not second temple Judaism.
@@EasternRomanAficionado It was never acceptable, Genesis makes it clear marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s recorded to have happened like with Solomon and David but it wasn’t right.
what's this backdrop? Also, why be orthdox? be Muslim, it's the way of the one creator.
nope, orthodoxy is. Check out CIRA international, pfandefilms, brother Mel, Sam Shamoun, Nabil Asli, Give light and many others that will be recommended in the video suggestions going forward. I guarantee if you watch their videos you will either leave islam simply an apostate or a christian.
Because Islam is a false religion
@@posavkaI would also add Jay Dyer, Living Orthodox, and Kyle Orthodox, to that list.
Thats great news. Gay weddings are wonderful.
Once again, in what way?
@@EasternRomanAficionado A union of two people coming together in love is great.
@@Quint-ib4nf That depends solely on the Incredulity of the individual as to what they would count as real love. It's utterly arbitrary.
unpopular take but i think its way better for a child to be raised by two people with income(same sex or not) that are willing to raise it then to be aborted or raised in social centers (which you know is the most evil system in our country Bojan). We christians as mostly prolife community should be more active in improving foster care systems (that includes allowing same sex couples to take care of abandoned children) otherwise its simple hypocrisy.
Adoption must always be centered around what is best for the child, the child (not the adults) must remain the client. Same sex parents are better than no parents, and perhaps better than even single parents. But there is a still a hierarchy of what is optimal for the child and same sex couples cannot be at the top because they are suboptimal to opposite sex couples. An orphan is a child who has lost both his/her mother and father, same sex couples cannot compensate for the child's loss to the same degree that opposite sex couples can.
I agree, I see too many people trying to frame arguments in terms of worst case scenario and what they are of the opinion of would be better than a worse case scenario. How about we just start looking at best case scenario and looking to accommodate based on that?
It's like saying it would be better to have your arm cut off then die but if there's no necessity to cut someone's arm off why even create such a dichotomy to argue over?
You speak about consequences, Pandora's box etc. Is is okay to have your views, but keep in mind you need some evidence for what you are suggesting, feelings are just feelings. No scientific paper show any consequences for children and all the other you mentioned..
Well there are plenty of research papers which suggest that Children who were brought up by Two parents(male and female) are doing better in literaly every measurment you could imagine, also lots of scientific studies show that having mother and father is crucial for healthy development. Therfore you can Logicly conclude that growing up in same-sex household shouldn’t be ideal for children to say the least
It is the height of religious arrogance to dictate to the _secular_ state how _secular_ , _civil_ marriage has to look like.
Religion has _no_ right to dictate secular government.
The "marriage" of religion and power has always been an unholy union.
Please move to North Korea, there is no religion there.
@@SRBOMBONICA86🗿🍷