Sinner Elton John Is Not ‘Blessed by God to Create Natural Families’


Any surprise Ukraine’s Orthodox Church is acting like a toddler over Elton John’s purported adoption of an HIV-positive baby there? The singer, who for once had something non-bratty to tell reporters, hasn’t made any official in-roads to adopt the 14-month-old Lev he met during a visit to an orphanage, but already a government official declared Elton too old, and too gay, to qualify for adoption.

Now enter the Donetsk Diocese of the Orthodox Church, which reached a similar conclusion. Says Father Georgy Gulyaev: “The Church is strictly against same-sex marriages and the damage they cause. It’s written in Holy Scriptures that homosexual marriage and relations is a sin. It is a sin, it is against nature, and it represents the dead end of human development. People pretend to have good intentions, create semi-marriages and so-called families, and moreover they dare to adopt children. Unlike people who are blessed by God to create natural families, these are people who succumb to their passions. This is definitely a sin, there is no other word for it, and the church will never agree that people who have created same-sex ‘marriage’ could also dare to adopt children. This applies to all, including Elton John. He is a sinner.”

But isn’t it the position of nearly every religion that we are all sinners? Despite our good intentions?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #adoption #davidfurnish #eltonjohn stories and more


  • Jaroslaw

    I’m going to state the obvious, but I just can’t help it: How did a significant portion of these angels from God end up in an orphanage in the first place? I guess the people “God blessed” to reproduce AND their entire families didn’t feel a responsibility to care for them?

    Note – I’m saying some, not all.

  • terrwill

    Father Gulyaev: You are a pathetic subhuman piece of filth…….much better that a kid wallow in an orphanage than have a wonderful life with someone who is more than able to provide this kid with one.

  • schlukitz


    I keep asking myself the very same question, Jaroslaw?

    Obviously, that hasn’t occurred to those who blithely dismiss the gays as “sinners” who “dare to adopt children”


  • Dmitry

    Yeah, now they need to show an example, and find the boy a *proper* family, biggots. Good luck with that in the AIDS-alienating world that is ex-USSR.
    And tough luck for the baby.

  • Brian

    Queerty asked: “But isn’t it the position of nearly every religion that we are all sinners? Despite our good intentions?”

    Every religion, officially. No Christian organization has declared:

    Homosexuality is Not Wrong, Sinful or Deviant.”

    +70% of Americans believe we are “morally wrong,” (Gallup 2008) and they got that belief from religion.

    We will NEVER be EQUAL as long as we are WRONG.

  • J. Clarence

    Actually, technically he is “blessed”, he has a penis doesn’t he? Now whether or not he chooses not to use that wonderful piece of biology is up to him. So I don’t know what that priest is talking about.

    @Brian: Also Brian you keep mentioning this Gullup 2008 poll. But the most recent 2008 poll says it is only 48%. See here:

    In fact the highest it has ever been was in the most recent studies was 51%. Which is still to much for my taste.

    I’ve looked around a bit and the only place where I saw 70% was a gallup poll of Muslims in France. See here:

    Could you just provide the source of where you found that +70%.

    And I love the additional “officially” clause you added, because it changes what you are saying doesn’t?

    Also the majority of Americans disapproved giving women the right to work when it passed but it did. The same for the Civil Rights during the ’60s. If the majority could be in opposition when it passed, but grew to accept it and embrace, what makes you think it will be any different with marriage-equality.

  • Andrew

    Cheers to Elton. [“Father” Georgy can go fuck himself]

  • schlukitz

    @J. Clarence:

    what makes you think it will be any different with marriage-equality.

    The fact that the church is succeeding in overturning the law in those states where we already had won the right to marriage-equality and the federal government is doing nothing to stop it, much less overturn DOMA, which Obama had promised to do and has since withdrew from the table.

    So, it IS different in many ways.

    The right for women to work and civil-rights for the black community had the backing of the Senate, Congress and the presidents who presided over them.

    Unfortunately, we don’t! ;o) We are as despised by many of them as we are by the religious fanatics in this country.

  • Fitz

    It’s a little off the point.. BUT… I have to say, even if they were a hetty couple, they are not likely to pass a home study. They are old, emotionally labile, with a history of substance abuse, and no known history with children. It’s very noble of Sir Elton to want to help, and I hope that he finds an appropriate way to stay engaged even if he can’t bring home a baby.

  • J. Clarence

    @schlukitz: “The right for women to work and civil-rights for the black community had the backing of the Senate, Congress and the presidents who presided over them.”

    When their legislation eventually passed they did, but Suffrage failed to pass the Congress several times before barely passing before it had to be ratified by the states. The same with Civil-Rights movement. Those movement did not have immediate support from the Congress or executive branch, they had to build it up over a long period of time–which we are doing now (not well might I add). For example the FMA failed the pass when it was initially introduced. How is that not an exactly of how we have at least an iota of support on the hill, and it has grown since?

    And exactly on what legal/constitutional grounds should the federal government intervene in a state issue?

  • schlukitz

    @J. Clarence:

    And exactly on what legal/constitutional grounds should the federal government intervene in a state issue?

    Thank you for your response and your thoughts on the issue of marriage equality.

    I don’t exactly how to respond on that question other than asking if it would be right for states to decide, on a state-by-state basis, whether heterosexuals have the right to marry?

  • J. Clarence

    @schlukitz: Schlukitz, I’m not really sure you understand how our system of government works. I do believe that it is a constitutional right for every same-sex couple to get married just as heterosexuals and treated equally under the law, but unfortunately because of laws in place that says it is a state issue it remains a state issue and the federal government should not intervene.

    Now once DOMA is repealed and the Catholic Church tries to pull this kind of stunt then I would be calling my Senator to put pressure on the Department of Justice to nip it in the bud; however, we are not there yet.

    You cannot have the federal government intervening in every state case where the executive branch, in this case the White House, is sympathetic to the cause unless the federal government has some constitutional grounds to intervene.

  • schlukitz

    @J. Clarence:

    @schlukitz: Schlukitz, I’m not really sure you understand how our system of government works.

    How patronizing of you.

    You are absolutely right. I do not understand a government that makes every LGBT person wrong, just like the church does.

    I do not understand a government that denies some 36,000 bi-national couples the right to live their lives together.

    I do not understand a government who collects taxes from me (big time), yet tells me that I would “be a drain on the economy” were I to receive the exact same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy, at my expense, I might add.

    I will not bore you with a litany of other things that I “do not understand”, and am not currently entitled to as a second-class citizen, as you so deprecatingly put it.

    It’s so bloody easy to spout “legaleeze” and parliamentary procedure at people when you are not bothered by or suffering the outrage that a good many law-abiding, tax-paying citizens like myself must suffer because we “do not understand how our system of government” works and should be working.

    Explaining how our government “works” to people like me, Dom and InExile, is a little like telling the person about to be beheaded, “Well, this is the way the system works.”

    Please try walking a mile in another man’s moccasins before unthinkingly throwing salt on other people’s wounds.

  • Jaroslaw

    Clarence – this is not an insult, but telling someone “they may not know how our system of government works” is probably not the best opening statement in a debate. I could say “perhaps YOU don’t understand…”

    Actually, I don’t either, but since you claim to, how did the government intervene in civil rights? Minimum wage? Health & safety laws? There are zillions of things the feds regulate and I’m sure they are not all specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

    Not that I really have a problem with them regulating it, but I do know for a fact Michigan had a law regarding meat, hot dog content etc. someone sued and the Federal law (much weaker) superceded. Again, how does this happen?

    It seems very clear then, on the issue of marriage that it is a state issue, the Constitution says states must recognize other state’s things, like credit card debt, loans, mortgages, driver licenses, medical privacy laws. How then is a special federal law carved out for marriage (DOMA)?

  • Jaroslaw

    Schlukitz – I was typing my response to Clarence and you beat me to it.

  • J. Clarence

    @schlukitz: I’m not disputing that it is an unjust and wrong law. I’m affected by it just as much as you are (we’re both gay, I am assuming). However, we have a system of government constructed the way it is for a reason, and it provides (many) mechanisms in which unjust and wrong laws can be repealed or fixed.

    That requires political activism and pressure on our elected officials, not throwing a tantrum at constitution.

  • J. Clarence

    Civil-Rights: Brown v. Board of Education, a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. Another the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 (and all others proceeding and since).

    I’m not saying that the federal government cannot get involved in things that explicitly stated in the constitution, I’m not Clarence Thomas (though I sadly share his name). The federally government clearly has a role in that, however, there are procedures in place for how the federal government can approach those things like the aforementioned in Civil-Rights.

    And you are Jaroslaw, that was pretty mean and spiteful of me to say. I apologize.

  • Jaroslaw

    Clarence – AGAIN – so how do the Feds decide which areas to intrude into and on what legal basis?

  • schlukitz

    @J. Clarence:

    not throwing a tantrum at constitution.

    That’s one mighty big salt shaker you got there, fella!

    Diplomacy (or sensitivity) are obviously, not your stronger points.

  • J. Clarence

    @Jaroslaw: “So how do the Feds decide which areas to intrude into and on what legal basis?”

    The two main and obvious ways are somebody either brings a case before a federal court and the ruling changes the law, i.e. Roe v. Wade, or the Congress passes a bill that changes the law. After which the federal government then has legal grounds impede a state from doing something that runs contrary to the new law. That’s what happened when they started segregating schools in the South. The federal government cannot just impose on the states without some law (or court ruling that becomes a law) that gives them the authority to do so.

    @Schukitz: LOL…I guess not.

  • Jaroslaw

    #20 J. Clarence — I know that. What I mean is our Constitution delineates what is in the purview of the Federal government and specifically says those issues not mentioned are reserved to the states.

    Marriage has always been a state issue. There are many other issues like this. It isn’t supposed to be “just passing a law” by Congress, the Constitution has to be amended, which is a pretty tough process.

    So I guess my question is what is the defining difference between a ‘bill’ and an amendment as to the scope of its power and authority over (all) the states?

  • Jaroslaw

    I’m not explaining myself well, but it seems that Congress can’t just poke its nose into a particular (or all simultaneously) state’s business just because it wants to. Otherwise what is the purpose of separation of powers?

    Do you get what I’m trying to say?

    So, it seems to me that when DOMA was first proposed, everyone should have said, well, gee marriage is a state issue and we really can’t touch that. I mean if that isn’t clear, what is?

  • Jaroslaw

    Schuklitz – let’s cut some slack – he apologized (thank you)

  • J. Clarence

    @Jaroslaw: No, you are explaining yourself well, and I completely agree with you, the Congress cannot or should not be intervening unless there is a law that gives them authority to do. DOMA was one of those hypocritical laws passed by Republicans, who when it fits them advocates small government but have no problem with big government bills/amendments that are aligned with their ideology.

    And the amendment process is not the only means the Congress can enact landmark legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not an amendment but yet it drastically changed the country.

    An amendment to the constitution is essentially just a law on steroids. The President cannot veto it, and it is really difficult to pass as you said–which is why it is hardly ever used.

    If the Congress passes just a law (and the president signs it or the Congress overturns the veto) the executive branch has the authority and responsibility to make sure it is executed. So in that sense a law and an amendment are carry the same weight as it relates to its execution. A state cannot say “I don’t want to follow it” in either case, unless they challenge it in court, i.e. the tenth amendment.

  • schlukitz


    To you perhaps, but not to me.

    From Post No. 17 by J. Clarence

    And you are Jaroslaw, that was pretty mean and spiteful of me to say. I apologize.

    I failed to see my named mentioned anywhere in that apology! ;(

Comments are closed.