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.