Post-script: Religious perspective.

Sorry this post was a bit late in coming out but here it is now!
First of all, on Origen, a writer who was very influential in early Christianity, my sources unanimously said that while much of his early work was credible, he " seemed to lose his marbles somewhat as he got older." Having said that, some of his work is accepted by the Church, though he is not recognized as a saint or anything. Thus, "I would say Origen is viewed in the Church as a warning to us that no matter how wise we may be, we can always stumble and fall." Then, whether we could use his writings as a Church view or accepted by the Church must be carefully examined however it is Origen's "thinking on such things as pre-incarnate souls and other matters clearly (that) strayed from true belief by a wide margin." In that case, you could still make a pro-homosexuality in Orthodoxy argument but "a good bit of his writings are considered Heretical." Moving on, the Epistle of Barnabus, which has been used in anti-homosexuals in Orthodoxy arguments, "is not considered Scripture by the Orthodox." This is because the authorship can not be verified in a way acceptable to the Church. Some "are considered to be good historical and/or theological documents but did not rise to the level of Scripture." Which cuts out that argument of anti-homosexuals in Orthodoxy. Finally, as for the examples of homosexual relationships among the Saints, my religious teachers were hesitant to say the least. Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas were more about "mothers and expectant mothers " who they are actually the patrons of in the Catholic tradition. For David and Jonathan, they "clearly loved each other" but my teachers were of the mind that " this is the kind of love that fellow warriors and great friends have for each other" and they did not think that they had the type of same-sex love that apologists for homosexuality "would like to read into that relationship." The kiss that they do share in 1 Samuel was "more common in old times and devoid of sexuality." Sts. Sergius and Bacchus' relationship was also grouped in the same way as David and Jonathan's. In fact, one teacher said "I don’t think it was anything like what would be considered a same sex relationship today (although they were paraded around in women’s clothes as part of their torture)." In concluding my questions, I also asked about the Hesychast Saints Zosima and Basilisk who gave my teachers a bit more of a problem in answering: "Certain parts of their story and relationship make me uncomfortable" continuing,  "I am not certain that they were not in a relationship that was (just) romantic in nature." Finally, a priest responded that: "this goes on more than we think among monks." However, they were essentially a bit stumped as one said that the "(b)ottom line is that I just don’t know." In the end though, John Boswell was discredited by one of my teachers, as he cited first Robin Darling Young in "First Things, Gay marriage: Reimagining Church History" and then Brent D. Shaw in "A groom of One's own." Both texts ripped Boswell's work for the most part. In this way, the argument thus far advanced may be seen to be counter to that of the establishment of my faith but I see that as debatable.

Eighth Post: Final blog-post.

As I researched this admittedly touchy subject of homosexuality and its relationship with Orthodox Christianity, I came into the debate with the rough idea that our God is a God of love and a God of tolerance; yes, he also punishes those who do evil in his sight, but loving relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual, would be accepted by Him. Having set myself four questions including whether the Orthodox Church actually has a view on homosexuality, whether homosexuals serve in the clergy or take part in Communion as the laity, and finally, if the Orthodox Faith itself ostracizes these groups, I really found some answers. As I have read all of these books, I have come to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is only against sexuality, not loving homosexual relationships. The Orthodox Church's stance towards homosexuality is normally built on the views of specific persons, the examples of possibly homosexual saints serving to illustrate that Orthodoxy does have homosexuals in the clergy/laity. Finally, Orthodoxy only ostracizes homosexuals in specific instances. In general, homosexuals should be, and have been, accepted as part of the Christain Family.

Seventh Post: THE BODY AND SOCIETY--- BY: Peter Brown.

In this book, I sought to find an argument that supported my claim of the Church and the Early Church Fathers having been opposed to sexuality in general, not loving homosexual relationships. This was supported by Brown continually highlighting the fact that the Fathers supported continence in both the clergy and, by often more radical members, the laity. The book itself, Brown states in the first sentence, is a study on "the practice of permanent sexual renunciation." Brown then cites the questionably-Orthodox early Christian writer Origen, a "towering genius" when it comes to the "development of notions on sexuality..." Brown continues by pointing out many specific cases of sexual renunciation by early Christians. The list includes Saint Eupraxia, a woman who slept on hard ashes "to tame her body at the time when her periods first began." And the Desert Fathers who moved into the desert for several reasons including the fight against sexuality. Brown then remarks on how the attitude towards sexuality has formed from the Apostle Paul to the fifth century. The arguments of Clement of Alexandria among others were also illuminated in Brown's book in a way which helped to progress his argument of sexuality contiually having to be dealt with. In the end, one of the big questions of the book was this: "... Why did Christians appear to write so much about sex?" The answer, simply put, is because they had to. Ranging from virgins such as St. Macrina the Younger to the zealous Encratites (a group not seen as Orthodox.) all had comments on the topic and even the Stoics who had an affect on St. Clement of Alexandria, another influential author, dealt with the subject. Denial of sexuality, Brown notices, also has to do with world-denial which was very important to the ascetics of then and now. While Brown does seem at times to center on the Latin, Catholic traditon, he also mentions influential Orthodox thinkers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius of Pontus, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, John Climacus, and Philoxenus of Mabbug. This fusion serves to cover all aspects of Christianity, but for this study, the Orthodox members will be looked more closely at. Looking at several historic views of sexuality, including Stoicism, Marcion, Tatian, and the Encratites, Brown then built into the Christian view. This progression served his purpose wonderfully (i.e. illustratig the questions sexuality has always stirred for people.)

Sixth Post: A question.

The one passage which I have found the least argument on though, is from Leviticus 18 verse 22. Here, it clearly states: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination." The fact that, for as far as I could find, neither Zymaris nor Boswell made an argument about it is quite distressing. Similarly, the Church Fathers clearly state: 'Israel (the People of the Lord who receive these teachings from Moses) was commanded not to live according to the way of life of Egypt and Canaan, nor to walk in their ordinances.' Yes, idolatry is highlighted as the predominate sin, but homosexuality and sodomy are also expressly spoken against. The only arguments that I could fit against this would be that something was translated incompletely; taking from Boswell, or that this doesn't speak about loving homosexual relationships outside of sexuality, where both heterosexual and homosexual relations are scorned; an argument put forward by Zymaris.

Fifth Post: Forming an argument based on CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, AND HOMOSEXUALITY--- By John Boswell.

In this book, Boswell constructs an argument from an academic/historical perspective. Thus, it is far easier to follow his logic than it was to follow Zymaris'. Nonetheless, there are arguments that both texts have in common. However, it is important to remember that his writing comes from a non-Orthodox, non-homosexual perspective. This can be both good and bad as he can be considered to be looking straight at the facts, without bias. On the other hand, he leaves some to be desired in both fields as his Orthodox jargon is at times misplaced while homosexual sides of arguments are at times lacking. Nonetheless, Boswell supplies the reader with a lot of basic information that can be utilized effectively to construct arguments for homosexuality in Orthodoxy. For example, the issue of translation. The fact of the matter is that translation is often times at best a broken field. One receives this notion from work in even modern languages (i.e. German to English and vice versa) but these problems are only multiplied when it comes to translating old Hebrew or Greek texts. Boswells other argument, that social intolerance were not led by the Church, but rather by personal prejudice, is a very important aspect of the argument. Boswell's examples of Saints who have some homosexual connotations is another argument altogether. If we can canonize people with homosexual leanings, why then can we not accept them? Relationships such as those between David and Johnathan, Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, and Saint Paulinus and Ausonius are very hard to argue against. Before closing, Boswell makes a couple other very good points that are integral to the pro-homosexuality in Orthodoxy argument: first, that there are other activities that were spurned; namely shaving, regular bathing, and other things. Today, those who do not undergo these actions are frequently criticized. Thus, the biases of an influential few permeated into the collective thought of the Church. Boswell makes a clear, well-thought, argument that is hard to fight against. Thus, Boswell gives his own responses to the questions of this study project: that the Orthodox Church's "view" towards homosexuals may seem anti-homosexual, but that is only due to the permeation of personal biases into the Faith. Boswell doesn't talk about homosexuals practicing Orthodoxy, but rather their acceptance so the second question is not applicable. Boswell 's examples of homosexual relationships within the Faith and even among the Holy Figures and Saints serves to answer that homosexuals are both part of the clergy and the laity. And finally, the Orthodox Faith itself, from my interpretation of Boswell's argument, would not seem to automatically ostracize these groups. In fact, it seems he is of the mind that homosexuals would be accepted: "that Christian... attitudes would be focused on the quality of the love, not the gender of the parties involved or the biological function of their affection."

Fourth Post: Constructing an Argument based upon ON BEING ORTHODOX AND GAY--- BY NICHOLAS ZYMARIS

Looking back on Zymaris' paper, I find that his argument begins with himself on a personal level. I say this because he is a practicing Orthodox Christian. This in itself answers one of the questions I seek to answer in this study project: That of whether or not there are practicing homosexuals in Orthodoxy. There are homosexual Orthodox Christians, and not only today, this group has existed before John Boswell popularized the notion. Another response to one of my questions is highlighted by Zymaris in his paper as well: that members of both the Orthodox clergy and laity can be and have been (or at the very least seem to have had no aversion towards such feelings) homosexuals. In supporting this statement Zymaris then cites several Holy figures, who I mentioned in my first post about On Being Orthodox and Gay: David and Jonathan, and Saints Sergius and Bacchus. These, in fact, are only a couple of the examples that I have been given as I have undertaken this project. Zymaris also makes two other very powerful arguments: first of all, that the Holy Fathers and the Bible say nothing against real homosexual relationships (loving, affectionate ones) and secondly, that the Church's Holy Fathers and the Bible only speak against heterosexuals committing homosexual acts. The first argument rings so deeply because of the grounds Zymaris founds it upon: Our God is a God of Love, thus he would never reject one form of natural love while accepting another. This clearly throws the gauntlet at those who are anti-homosexual proponents, as does the whole paper. In closing, I would say that Zymaris' paper answers three of my study project questions if not all four. Along with the responses to the two queries that I have already mentioned, Zymaris constructs an argument against conventional wisdom, saying that the Orthodox Church's attitudes towards homosexuals is not correct in being described as hostile towards gays and lesbians. Rather, that this has been brought about because of radical factions within, and outside of, the Church. Thus, the Orthodox faith does not immediately ostracize homosexuals, but rather individual members act upon their own personal prejudices to make Orthodoxy seem anti-homosexual.

Third post: CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, AND HOMOSEXUALITY--- By J. Boswell

In this book, Boswell makes several arguments throughout which provide a good basis of a defense of homosexuality in Orthodox Christianity. One of these arguments is that of translation, a stance which Boswell defends with various examples of theological writers ranging from St. John Chrysostom to Clement of Alexandria not being able to choose a meaning amongst themselves. Boswell also highlights the fact that many people have been and continue to face intolerance, and homosexuals are one of the groups, including Jews, who have faced intolerance to some degree for much of history. This serves as a lead-in to his next argument, that Urban v.s. Rural tolerance levels have also played a large role in the acceptance of homosexuality in society as well as in Orthodoxy. Boswell then uses as examples Rome and Constantinople in ancient times: when both societies became more Rural, tolerance of gays and other groups plummeted. Yet another issue that Boswell brings up is that of homosexuality and the view of whether it is "natural" or "unnatural." This then progresses to the argument of people being designated for their unnatural-ness or nonconformity, as an example, Boswell cites the fact that most people think of Oscar Wilde as being gay and having a lover of the same sex, illustrating the simple intolerance that has permeated into Orthodoxy when religious interpreters and theologians impose their views onto Religion. He then continues, observing quite brilliantly  that "a voice not in harmony with that of 'the people' was ipso facto out of harmony with God and hence punishable." Boswell then cites the sources which he uses in forming his observations: these include 1. Scriptural tradition, 2. social and intellectual factors relating to early Christian opinion on the subject, and 3. theological objections to homosexuality among some of the Church Fathers. Delving straight into the Bible, Boswell then visits some of the texts which are commonly cited by anti-homosexual proponents and goes about destroying their arguments. In the story of Sodom, there are four theories as to why the city was destroyed including inhospitality to angels of the Lord, attempting to rape said angels, and homosexuality. Of these, most scholars put the most weight in the argument that Sodom was destroyed because of its inhospitable treatment of visitors sent by the Lord. Likewise, Boswell argues that of the sins of the inhabitants of Sodom, homosexuality is never mentioned! Continuing, Boswell observes that Jesus Himself never actually makes an argument against homosexuals either, instead often focusing on the sin of idolatry. In fact, another source of anti-homosexual feeling in Leviticus is similarly unjustified, says Boswell, instead saying that theologians and the Bible are only against homosexuality when the nature of a person is perverted in the action. This means, Boswell argues, that they are against heterosexuals undertaking homosexual acts as only this would be a perversion of a person. Concluding his Chapter on the Scriptures, Boswell quickly moves to the New Testament, saying that it "takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality." Saying simply this would not constitute a good argument though, and Boswell recognizes this, going on to say that St. Paul's condemnation of sexual excesses speaks as much about heterosexuality as homosexuality. In the next Chapter, Boswell states that even St. John Chrysostom, an anti-gay force often cited in anti-homosexual arguments, "admired intensely" the historic gay passions of the early Greeks and even "considered homosexual attraction perfectly normal." However, Boswell does look at it from the anti-homosexuality side, saying that their biggest advantage is the issue of violation of gender expectations. This is best exemplified by St. Cyprian who was against men acting in women's roles on the stage. On the opposite end of the stick, interpretations of Plato and other people who may have had influences on early Christian thought were very heated with St. Clement of the mind that Plato was clearly anti-homosexuality, but St. Theodoret of Cyrus just as seriously believed that Plato was pro-homosexuality. Boswell also highlighted several saints who have been argued as being in gay relationships or promoted homosexual attitudes. These include St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas, St. Paulinus and Ausonius, David and Johnathan and several others. Boswell also provides evidence that homosexual prostitution, distinctly different on principle but in ways the same, was not outlawed in Byzantium until the 6th century, two centuries after Orthodox Christianity became the national religion there. In concluding yet another Chapter, Boswell charismatically remarked that the examples of the tolerating would triumph over the intolerant, and "that Christian... attitudes would be focused on the quality of the love, not the gender of the parties involved or the biological function of their affection." The numbers of those tolerant towards homosexuality even numbered Saint John Damascene among other more Latin Saints. In drawing his book to a close, Boswell puts forward a couple more arguments: that those who condemned homosexual behavior also condemned such common place things as lending at interest, shaving, regular bathing, practicing circumcision and several other things. These condemnations were, Boswell argues, "due to personal prejudice, misinformation, or an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible." Finally, in his conclusion, Boswell observes "Homosexual passions... were celebrated in spiritual as well as carnal contexts." With this parting shot that has perfectly synthesized his previous arguments and information that he sought to incorporate into those arguments, Boswell succeeds in effectively communicating his thesis: that social intolerance's towards homosexuals from society permeated into Orthodoxy through a handful of writers and theologians writing from their own biases.

Second Post: Subject: ON BEING ORTHODOX AND GAY--- BY NICHOLAS ZYMARIS.

Zymaris, a practicing gay Orthodox Christian, begins his paper with the traditional Paschal greeting: Christ is Risen, Truely he is Risen! As he gets the paper going, Zymaris makes plain that he will be writing from a pro-homosexuals in Orthodoxy standpoint. In the next paragraph Zymaris then begins his fight, posing a question vital to some people, but one which he sees as being foolish: "How could you possibly reconcile the gay lifestyle with Orthodoxy?" His first point is that the gay lifestyle is not something "...so heinous that it should be self-evident that it cannot be compatible in any way with our faith..." but rather that homosexuality "...is not something chosen, but an innate thing which is discovered."In fact Zymaris actually states quite plainly that being gay and Orthodox "is hardly a new thing." Controversial? You won't believe it. But Zymaris isn't done, he proceeds to go about painting the picture that homosexuals and heterosexuals do mostly the same things, for example, they both have roughly the same morning rituals and so forth. Then Zymaris makes yet another good point: People don't know what they want from gays. At one point society, and even the Orthodox Church, doesn't seem to support committed homosexual sexual relationships in the same way as it does heterosexual ones, yet almost preferring one night stands which can be confessed instead of "living in sin like a committed relationship would be considered." Zymaris then puts forth yet another perfectly valid point: that is, when heterosexuals cheat on their spouses, there is no condemnation of the "heterosexual lifestyle" whereas homosexuals are guilty of transgressions specific only to gays, i.e. loving someone of the same sex, thus forming the terrible ideal that "we are all equally sinners but some sinners are more sinful than others." Following this prognosis, Zymaris then takes straight from the Orthodox Church's Holy Tradition: slander, which is what Zymaris quite rightly calls this assault on homosexuality, is obviously mentioned as being sinful; while saying "nothing bad about what the real 'gay lifestyle' involves." Continuing his arguement, Zymaris offers counterpoints to such extreme people as Jeffrey Dahmer by giving these observations: 1. that a great majority of criminals are heterosexual, 2. that most brutal or violent crime is committed by heterosexuals, and 3. that heterosexual rape is far more prevalent than homosexual rape. These observations each strengthen his case closing the paragraph with a true stunner: "it is obvious that only prejudice could permit one to condemn all heterosexuals for the sins of a few. Does not the same seem obvious with regard to homosexuals?" This bombshell blows away the arguements of the anti-homosexuals quite wonderfully in my mind. But Zymaris isn't done there. No, he then tackles the subject idea of gays molesting or corrupting children. His observation, coming from 1997, is that 99% of child molestations are heterosexual. But Zymaris doesn't leave it at that! He also factors in that homosexuals and bisexuals account for about 5-11% of the U.S. population meaning that child molestation is at least 10 TIMES as common, if not more, in the heterosexual community. This poses the question of why would the Church then turn against such an unoffending community. There is no response. Zymaris then continues to say that the Orthodox Tradition criticizes rape, pederasty (homosexual relations between a man and a boy, so pretty much homosexual rape), and fornication. Fornication here refers to the Greek p???e?a, that is, porneia, found in both the New Testament and the writings of the Holy Fathers to mean prostitution. St. John Chrysostom, often cited as an anti-gay source, can also be cited in this distinction made from Romans Chapter 1: he distinguishes between love or passion, eros in Greek, and that which "burned in their appetite for each other." The latter is designated by Zymaris as sinful while the former would have been, according to Zymaris, more acceptable if not outright acceptable. Then Zymaris states that the sin under investigation here was not homosexuality at all but rather idolatry! He then turns to pagan cults where both women and men "engaged in frenzied rites which were indeed sometimes of a same-sex character," saying that these instances are not the homosexual relationship Zymaris advocates. He is progrssing the LOVING homosexual relationship. But once more, this isn't enough, Zymaris then criticizes the anti-homosexual side by the unintelligence of their stance under various types of pressure. For example: Some people still bring up these pagan instances, but do gay men still undergo these frenzied rituals? Zymaris answers no. Indeed, St. Paul, according to Zymaris, is not just referring to idolaters though when he speaks. St. Paul is also preaching against those who "exchanged." In this instance, Zymaris is of the mind that a gay person is already gay, i.e., nothing has been changed and nothing will be "exchanged." No, instead, Zymaris contends that St. Paul is speaking against those who are not engaging in same-sex activity out of love or passion, but gave up what was their nature. (Meaning they were heterosexuals who undertook these homosexual activities.) Both St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom decry this fact, as does Zymaris: that these were depraved and loveless acts, not because they were homosexual. Continuing to other passages which anti-gay activists normally cite, namely I Corinthians Chapter 6 Verse 9 and I Timothy Chapter 6 Verse 10, Zymaris then utilizes the words of St. John the Faster to correct wrong beliefs about two words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. These, according to St. John, aren't words decrying homosexuals as The Faster says: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives" thus making that argument nothing uniquely homosexual, or, more appropriately, putting the struggle back to the that for the correct translation of words from Greek, Arabic, etc. to English. Again, Zymaris concludes the paragraph by differentiating between a loving homosexual relationship, equal to a heterosexual one; and the rape and molestation both outlooks are at risk of. Because God is full of, and loves, love, so Zymaris argues that He wouldn't damn those in loving relationships, homosexual or not. Zymaris then takes the bold step of moving to passages in the Old Testament which anti-gay activists often use from the King James Bible. Zymaris brings in historical observations which says that those committing homosexual deads as "sodomites and whores" were often forced into these roles. Zymaris then highlights the act of conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. This action illustrates that "Christ... had no problem with eunuchs in the Kingdom of Heaven." If this is all true, then this shows that any selectiveness of the Orthodox faith towards eunuchs, or homosexuals is something recently installed. But Zymaris still has not finished. Rather, he also highlights the relationship between David and Jonathan in I and II Samuel: they traded garments and their souls were knitted together as one. And at Jonathan's death? he was eulogized (by David) with the words: "My love for you was pleasant, passing the love of women." If true, this tastes flagrently of a homosexual relationship. Likewise, this instance rings of the marriage phrase "the two shall become one." And yet Zymaris finds more examples in Ecclesiastes Chapter 4 in the King James Version of the Bible Verses 8-12 which expresses the need for companionship that is found in shared warmth, and helping one another, etc. Also, Zymaris is proud to give the reader an example of possibly homosexually related Saints in the two Siberian monks St. Zosima and St. Basilisk, who feared that his beloved would leave him. They apparently had a loving but not necessarily sexual relationship: the former something that Zymaris is willing to accept. The Church too would be for this, it would seem, as sexuality is not positively looked upon while loving relationships are. In the next paragraph, about the people and city of Sodom and what it represents, Zymaris highlights Ezekiel and The Lord when it is mentioned that a mob of homosexuals(?) gathered outside of Lot's house, in a gang rape-like situation, obviously not that of a loving relationship, a distinction which Zymaris once again makes. Indeed, Zymaris then highlights Lot's incest with his daughters in Genesis Ch.19 verses 30-38, essentially asking whether that is alright because it is a heterosexual relationship? The answer is a definite no in most Orthodox minds! Nonetheless, this was an often seen occurence back then, often in the pursuit of "pure blood" or something. Thus is Lot still seen as a Holy person. Another Holy pair of Saints which Zymaris highlights as having a loving homosexual relationship are the Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus who are described as "sweet companion(s) and lover(s)." John Boswell is agreed in this prognosis while several authors including David Woods, Robin Darling Young, and Brent D. Shaw are against this conjecture. However, Zymaris doesn't think Boswell is perfect, indeed, he finds some faults in his texts, as well as highlighting other reasons that Boswell doesn't, but agrees with him here, fending off those who would attack his work(s) by "dismiss(ing) anything that he has written" The story of Saints and Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus is actually titled, in Greek: "The Passion of Sergius and Bacchus" so it is kind of difficult to get around that fact. St. Simeon Metaphrastes described them in this way too, so it isn't just some liberal academics who are of this mind. Indeed, Boswell just made a wider audience aware of the gay Orthodox community, a community which he didn't create, just simply wrote about. Zymaris finally gets to the largest aspect of Orthodoxy that is most interesting in the study of the homosexual aspect within the faith: Orthodox Christianity has actually had a union ceremony that has existed since before the ninth century A.D. All editions of the Adelphopoiia, the union ceremony's title in Greek best translated as "brother-making" points to the Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus but the Greek Orthodox Church stands in contradiction of this. The conflict, Zymaris rightly says, is between those who see the Adelphopiia as a strictly brother-making ceremony and those who see it as a marriage rite for those of the same sex. Before continuing, Zymaris then discredits those who stand opposed to Boswell without reasonable explanation as essentially being extremist, recent converts from Protestant fundamentalism which is quite humorous whether or not it is true. Zymaris then completes several paragraphs simply illustrating the disorder in the ranks of those speaking against homosexual connotations as well as how they try to cover up the possibility. Zymaris then closes the door on the anti-gay arguement by stating that several parishes around the world have never stopped performing the rite of brother-making. For example, in Albania, vellameria, the Albanian word for the brother-making rite, was being performed through 1991! Members of the congregation form the town of Elbasan were most familiar with it but all Albanians knew of the rite. Also, there is an expression of the true Orthodox Christian spirit: that is, the practicing of religion far away from anti-gay violence and sentiments. It was said: "that is known where I come from; everyone eats at the same table and those differences don't matter." American Albanians were quite different though, picking up the homophobia found in the U.S. The rite is also continued in Northwest Greece as was noted in Father Evangelos K. Mantzouneas' "Adelphopeia from a Canonical Perspective." Indeed, many fighters in the Greek War for Independence of 1821 were bound by the brothermaking ceremony. Zymaris also notes the Sacred Band of Thebes, an all-gay military unit in the fourth century B.C. which required an oath of being 'over' an "addiction to women." No drinking of anothers blood was the only wrongdoing here as Orthodox Christians can only can partake in the Body and Blood of Christ. Adelphopeia was actually practiced in Russia, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro into the 19th century while it was also practiced in Italy before then. Beginning to close, with four pages left in his paper, Zymaris drops yet another bombshell: spiritual brotherhood making was commonly performed by priests in churches with the relationship clearly being concieved as a same-sex relationship NOT EXCLUDING EROS. This staement is actually against the way I was taught, with sexuality of any kind looked-down upon. If the church had been doing this since what seems like the beginning though, why stop now? As Zymaris put it, it has been permitted a lot longer than it has been (successfully) prohibited. Indeed, the spiritual brotherhood was stated as the couple's love not being of nature but rather of the Holy Spirit. This then doesn't close off the sexual nature of homosexual relationships though. After all, heterosexual relationships are sexual as well as spiritual. The answer can only be due to intolerance from the society of the day falling into the Church. Zymaris then gives the  more moderate view some notice: that homosexuals aren't monsters, their orientation being more or less neutral in relation to God, but that they must be celibate. Which is hard with marriage and monasticism both not feasible routes for them today. Zymaris then illustrates a kind of never-ending cycle of destructive nature which homosexuals are caught up in since they just can't appease the changed guidelines. But then, the sin of masturbation is mentioned, one which both homosexuals and heterosexuals often suffer from, as well as the sin of sexual thoughts. Yes, the Church is against sexuality. But, the idea that I brought into this project is that my faith is accepting of homosexuality alongside heterosexuality so long as sexual aspects, for both lifestyles, are limited if not non-existant. Afterall, heterosexuals and homosexuals both sin in the same ways, Zymaris also puts forward that "it should be said that gay people should not have to waste years of their life being tormented by the idea that their God-given capacity to love is a sin to be utterly suppressed." But both groups sin because we are all fallen humans, not because we are attracted to the opposite sex or not. Sins have to do with someone being wronged, not whether a male or female is the one wronged. Zymaris by the end is seeming to call for reconciliation, because "God calls us to love our neighbor, and this applies to all relationships and all people." The Lord is one of Love, meaning we should all not be so quick to judge one particular form of love or another as unloving or bad. I kind of have to agree, that the checklist people use in looking at relationships should be whether true love is present. The Church isn't in favor of sexuality, so erotic love, heterosexual or homosexual shouldn't be a factor when defining "Love." This is a point where Zymaris and I diverge, otherwise, I find his arguement extremely compelling. Only when love is not present should it be said that something is unnatural says Zymaris. This is true. In ending, Zymaris' last sentence or quote is quite striking: "What God has joined together, let no one tear asunder." Amen. Our Lord is a God of Love.

First post.

I'll be reading several texts from a couple points of view on the subject of the relationship between Greek Orthodox Christianity and Homosexuality and then blogging here about the material I have covered in a series of what can best be described as book reviews. I came up with this ISP idea by fusing two aspects of my life: I am a practicing Orthodox Christian and, while I myself am not homosexual, I wanted to see how the accepting nature of New College about people with alternative lifestyles fit into my faith through the eyes of various writers and thinkers. The study project will not only focus on the Orthodox Church's attitude towards homosexuals but also whether or not homosexuals comfortably practice Orthodoxy, if homosexuals are part of the clergy or the laity, and finally, whether or not the Orthodox faith automatically ostracizes groups that choose the homosexual life style. Books that I'll be reading include Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, by J. Boswell; On Being Orthodox and Gay, by N. Zymaris; as well as Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, by D.S. Bailey. I'll look to spend about a week on each book with a blog post or posts through-out the reading process as I explore the intricate relationship between Orthodoxy and Homosexuality.