Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(I Heart Chaos)   You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had no problem marrying gay couples? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time   (iheartchaos.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, holy orders, Roman army unit types, Sinai, European integration, pagan, St. Catherine  
•       •       •

19039 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2012 at 9:21 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-10 10:00:45 PM  
So my headline submission "Christian Rite" was just too subtle for the modtards when it got the instant-red?
 
2012-05-10 10:01:00 PM  

steamingpile: Overlooked because of status is not the same thing as accepting it.


The church couldn't overlook it, when it was churches that were keeping the records. Not only do these records show up in churches, they're signed off on by priests. It's not that they were overlooking it, they were signing off on it and not giving a damn because well why would they care?
 
2012-05-10 10:01:53 PM  
Image
www.christianity-revealed.com
Article
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasa c hristianrite.html
 
2012-05-10 10:02:03 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: ZoeNekros: Don't engage "defense of marriage" people on their own terms. There's no reason to respond to "that's they way it's always been" because that's not an argument. It doesn't matter how wrong they are historically speaking, but only how wrong they are morally speaking. Even if they were right about the history or marriage, it shouldn't be that way. It is immoral to treat gay couples as second-class citizens. That's all there is to it.

Forgive me, but if the dumbasses spout bullshiat as Eternal Truth™, I think the rest of have the right to call bullshiat. And I truly do not give a fark if it offends them. Christians need to be taught that, however willing they are to suspend reason and believe anything said to them by a self-appointed moral arbiter, the rest of us most certainly are not.


I'm not sure what I'm supposed to forgive you for. It sounds to me like, when it comes to this issue, you want to challenge them on moral grounds -- and that is exactly what I advocated. The morality they view as sacred has been passed down by bigoted historical church leaders, and doesn't even pass the most basic ethical tests against autonomy and basic human dignity. That is were the argument should be, with respect to this issue.

If someone wants to challenge them on their religious beliefs more generally, then it would important to go into history and epistemology, but this is a moral issue... one with a painfully obvious verdict if people can stay focused on it.
 
2012-05-10 10:02:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Forgot_my_password_again: Thats fascinating. I'm a medieval european history buff and I never heard of that.

One of the interesting to read up on is affrèrement in medieval France, in which two men pledged to be of one bread, one wine and one purse. Yeah for all practical purposes married. And the church knew about this, and had no issue with it.


But what about all that stuff in the New Testament condemning homosexuality as a sin??

Oh... right.
 
2012-05-10 10:03:31 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And if we're gonna get on the history train, there's Saints Sergius and Bacchus, who aren't particularly noteworthy except for the interesting old story that surrounds their martyrdom. Story goes that Bacchus was beaten to death, and Sergius was scheduled to be like wise executed. As he waited Bacchus appeared to Sergius telling him to not be afraid that they would soon be together in heaven or eternity, depending on exactly how the old words get translated. Oh yeah, there's no evidence of either having a wife or of them ever being apart. If what exists of the record in regards to them, then yeah they were quite likely gay. Also the story about one appearing to the other telling him to not be afraid for soon they'd be together forever, reads as very similar to other stories involving lovers, though almost straight ones. But when the form of a story is of a certain type, even if the people involved aren't the usual then there's a reason it's of the type, because the people involved fit it.


TFA mentions those two (although "Sergius" is named as "Serge"). Their story is partially validated by their wiki:
Link; the bit about them being paraded around in dresses is interesting -- it may be the Romans "outing" them, or it's also possible that the gay rumors sprang out of that (and their apparently very close relationship).
 
2012-05-10 10:04:04 PM  

steamingpile: Not a criminal offense? What farking.fantasy land are you living in? You could be killed for being gay and you know it


In the 10th century?

[citation needed]
 
2012-05-10 10:04:07 PM  

Cobataiwan: I hate to say this, as I support gay marriage myself, but aren't these rites different from marriage, as in the have a special name "office of civil union" or what not?


They had different names, but keep in mind at the time this was going on, the church had nothing to say on marriage, it wasn't even a sacrament yet. And often times what you find is names that come from particular regions, like the French term affrèrement, however it's not that it was something separate but rather a type. So it wasn't so much something separate from marriage but rather one of the types of marriage that existed.
 
2012-05-10 10:04:47 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And if we're gonna get on the history train, there's Saints Sergius and Bacchus, who aren't particularly noteworthy except for the interesting old story that surrounds their martyrdom. Story goes that Bacchus was beaten to death, and Sergius was scheduled to be like wise executed. As he waited Bacchus appeared to Sergius telling him to not be afraid that they would soon be together in heaven or eternity, depending on exactly how the old words get translated. Oh yeah, there's no evidence of either having a wife or of them ever being apart. If what exists of the record in regards to them, then yeah they were quite likely gay. Also the story about one appearing to the other telling him to not be afraid for soon they'd be together forever, reads as very similar to other stories involving lovers, though almost straight ones. But when the form of a story is of a certain type, even if the people involved aren't the usual then there's a reason it's of the type, because the people involved fit it.


Yeah. but Christianity wasn't perfected until Luther nailed his 95 thingee to some door. Like how rock wasn't perfected until Steve Miller came along in the 70's.
 
2012-05-10 10:05:42 PM  

fusillade762: But what about all that stuff in the New Testament condemning homosexuality as a sin??


It actually doesn't, because it couldn't. A blanket condemnation of homosexuality is rather difficult to issue when you have no concept of sexuality as we have it and instead think of sexuality as quite a bit more nuanced than we do.
 
2012-05-10 10:06:01 PM  
Another distraction from real issues
 
2012-05-10 10:06:27 PM  
This is another reason we have to teach comprehensive history classes in school. Not just dates, but the evolution (and devolution) of culture and society.

/Thanks goodness that I had a history teacher who made us get up out of seats and made us do stuff.
 
2012-05-10 10:07:16 PM  
OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.
 
2012-05-10 10:09:37 PM  

GhostFish: Benevolent Misanthrope: ZoeNekros: Don't engage "defense of marriage" people on their own terms. There's no reason to respond to "that's they way it's always been" because that's not an argument. It doesn't matter how wrong they are historically speaking, but only how wrong they are morally speaking. Even if they were right about the history or marriage, it shouldn't be that way. It is immoral to treat gay couples as second-class citizens. That's all there is to it.

Forgive me, but if the dumbasses spout bullshiat as Eternal Truth™, I think the rest of have the right to call bullshiat. And I truly do not give a fark if it offends them. Christians need to be taught that, however willing they are to suspend reason and believe anything said to them by a self-appointed moral arbiter, the rest of us most certainly are not.

Yeah, but they're willing to suspend reason and believe anything said to them by a self-appointed moral arbiter.
So why are you wasting your breath?


Because silence equals complicity.
 
2012-05-10 10:09:37 PM  

steamingpile: gays are not persecuted the way they believe.


There are states where you can be fired for being gay, be denied housing for being gay, then there's all the states where gays can't enter into formal state recognized partnerships and enjoy the legal benefits they bring....uh what was that again?
 
2012-05-10 10:09:50 PM  

fusillade762: WhyteRaven74: Forgot_my_password_again: Thats fascinating. I'm a medieval european history buff and I never heard of that.

One of the interesting to read up on is affrèrement in medieval France, in which two men pledged to be of one bread, one wine and one purse. Yeah for all practical purposes married. And the church knew about this, and had no issue with it.

But what about all that stuff in the New Testament condemning homosexuality as a sin??

Oh... right.


Dan Savage busted that stuff out in his podcast this week. I really hope that jackass from NOM follows through on his offer to debate the bible.
 
2012-05-10 10:10:03 PM  

steamingpile: OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.


They aren't? So they have all the legal protections and rights you and I do? They can marry? They can't get fired over their sexual orientation? They have the right to visit each other in the hospital?

Oh right, you're just trying to justify your homophobia. Got it.
 
2012-05-10 10:11:31 PM  

djkutch: Yeah. but Christianity wasn't perfected until Luther nailed his 95 thingee to some door. Like how rock wasn't perfected until Steve Miller came along in the 70's.


*snicker*
 
2012-05-10 10:12:32 PM  

steamingpile: OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.


Do you have any understanding of the words that are coming out of your mouth? What is this way of persecution that gays incorrectly believe they face?

Is it that they are not afforded the same basic rights as the rest of us? That they don't face verbal and physical abuse as adolescents, and to a lesser extent as adults? That they aren't denied employment, or even volunteer positions?

These things do happen, regularly, and it's horrible.
 
2012-05-10 10:14:16 PM  

ZoeNekros: Do you have any understanding of the words that are coming out of your mouth?


If saw what he spouts off in the sports tab, you wouldn't even bother asking that ;)
 
2012-05-10 10:14:31 PM  
you want some fun research... look up "Natural Eunuchs" it turns out the Church around 300 CE changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean someone without equipment. In Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, and yes even ancient Israel there were two categories of Eunuchs (one Category had two subgroups), first they had unnatural Eunuchs which were either people born with a defect (hence unnatural) or the ones that were made Eunuchs. Then you had the second category, the Natural Eunuchs, they are born and remain 'fully functional' they just lack the inclination. They are what we would call Homosexuals. They weren't referred to as men because in order to be a man you had to have sex with women and produce babies. So in ancient law like in Israel when they said two men shouldn't lie together as one would with women, what they were really saying in today's vernacular is that two heterosexual men shouldn't have sex. Rome had the same kind of law as did Egypt. Though man could have sex with a Eunuch as long as the Eunuch was the passive partner. You look at ancient Roman law and it even outlines this. So when Jesus made reference to "Natural Eunuch's" when he was talking about marriage (remember the 'Gospels' weren't written down until around 70 CE in Rome and so they would have been using Roman Vernacular) he was making a reference to Homosexual Men when he said that there are Eunuchs born this way. The early church use to have Eunuch priest (gay ones, don't forget if your made a Eunuch or were born with a defect you weren't allowed in temple service), sadly those priest sided with the anti-Nicean group and after the Niceans won out they started to turn against all Eunuchs until finally they just changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean unnatural Eunuch and made sure that if any Natural Eunuchs were caught in homosexual acts they would be made unnatural Eunuchs.
So congrats to the world... you have helped and perpetuated a thousands+ year old vendetta by the Catholic Church against Christian "Natural" Eunuch (gay) priest that opposed them.
 
2012-05-10 10:16:12 PM  
Wait, you mean God...and Jesus...was okay with the homogays?

IN MY BIBLE? IN MY RELIGION!??!??!?!?!?!??!??!??!!!??!??!!!?


/end faux outrage.

However, I find this story very interesting and actually want to do a bit more research on the topic.
 
2012-05-10 10:18:12 PM  

Eshkar: you want some fun research... look up "Natural Eunuchs" it turns out the Church around 300 CE changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean someone without equipment. In Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, and yes even ancient Israel there were two categories of Eunuchs (one Category had two subgroups), first they had unnatural Eunuchs which were either people born with a defect (hence unnatural) or the ones that were made Eunuchs. Then you had the second category, the Natural Eunuchs, they are born and remain 'fully functional' they just lack the inclination. They are what we would call Homosexuals. They weren't referred to as men because in order to be a man you had to have sex with women and produce babies. So in ancient law like in Israel when they said two men shouldn't lie together as one would with women, what they were really saying in today's vernacular is that two heterosexual men shouldn't have sex. Rome had the same kind of law as did Egypt. Though man could have sex with a Eunuch as long as the Eunuch was the passive partner. You look at ancient Roman law and it even outlines this. So when Jesus made reference to "Natural Eunuch's" when he was talking about marriage (remember the 'Gospels' weren't written down until around 70 CE in Rome and so they would have been using Roman Vernacular) he was making a reference to Homosexual Men when he said that there are Eunuchs born this way. The early church use to have Eunuch priest (gay ones, don't forget if your made a Eunuch or were born with a defect you weren't allowed in temple service), sadly those priest sided with the anti-Nicean group and after the Niceans won out they started to turn against all Eunuchs until finally they just changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean unnatural Eunuch and made sure that if any Natural Eunuchs were caught in homosexual acts they would be made unnatural Eunuchs.
So congrats to the world... you have helped and perpetuated a thousands+ year old vendetta by the Catho ...


Hunh. Got any cites, by any chance? That sounds interesting.
 
2012-05-10 10:18:13 PM  
www.christianity-revealed.com

Well I think we know which one is the bottom in this pair.
 
2012-05-10 10:19:11 PM  

Vtimlin: Another distraction from real issues


I somewhat agree. I don't see how religious marriage conventions from a thousand years ago relate to the guarantee of rights in our secular Constitution.
 
2012-05-10 10:19:30 PM  

Gwendolyn: djkutch: Yeah. but Christianity wasn't perfected until Luther nailed his 95 thingee to some door. Like how rock wasn't perfected until Steve Miller came along in the 70's.

*snicker*


I really hope you're trolling with that Steve Miller reference, everybody knows the greatest rock and roll band ever was the Beatles

/Stones
//Grateful Dead
 
2012-05-10 10:20:12 PM  

steamingpile: OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.


I can't even tell if idiots like you are trolling or serious anymore. Either way kindly shut the fark up and let the adults talk for once.
 
2012-05-10 10:20:19 PM  
The historian that the original author of this article is quoting, John Boswell, caused a big enough stir that I remember discussing him in Catholic high school back in the 80's, and he was a devout Catholic himself. The reason this didn't cause a bigger stir back in the day was because there was a fair amount of strident argument about Boswell's choice of translation, or at least that's how it was framed in my Catholic high school Latin class. Since most of his translations were from Greek, it probably would have been better if I was taking a Greek class. The priest teaching my class also pointed out, obviously, that Boswell was homosexual and his orientation would influence "the art of translation." There was a fair argument to be made that translations made by heterosexuals would also influence "the art of translation" and everything we'd read up until that point was similarly subjective. It made for a fairly interesting semester, at least as far as translating Latin could possible be.

For those interested, here's a link to Boswell's first book about homosexuality and the church, and there's even a Kindle edition:

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fo ur teenth/dp/0226067114 I haven't read it yet, but I picked up a copy because I had honestly forgotten about this guy.

His second book, 'Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe' is linked in the article. No Kindle edition. Booooo!

And for anyone interested, this is the original Irish Times article that was quoted verbatim without credit in the blog (F you, I Heart Chaos - give credit for shiat like that):

http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml - written by Jim Duffy

I was long out of high school and college by the time that article came out, so I can't speak to any controversy that arose from it at the time.
 
2012-05-10 10:24:06 PM  

aerojockey: [www.christianity-revealed.com image 380x235]

Well I think we know which one is the bottom in this pair.


JC?
 
2012-05-10 10:25:32 PM  

ph0rk: Hunh. Got any cites, by any chance? That sounds interesting.


I found this article and more on this: site
and then I did more research on my own in my universities library, so far what he asserts is primarily spot on.
 
2012-05-10 10:25:45 PM  
The words of Christ Himself:

Matthew 5:27-28 ESV

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."


I'm going to go park outside of Vegas and throw stones at all those men who are committing adultery.
 
2012-05-10 10:26:43 PM  
There is no doubt that there have been same sex relationships and couples throughout history - but you have to twist a lot to come to the conclusions this author did. Times and meanings change. Its impossible to put modern meanings of words and relationships to a thousand years ago.

/gay
//found this yesterday and been reading up on it pretty much all day
 
2012-05-10 10:29:47 PM  

steamingpile: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: wouldn't accept divorce then why would they accept same sex at a time when it could be a criminal offense.

Because at the time it wasn't a criminal offense. Also as for the divorce thing, that's based on some flimsy translating of some Gospel verses and has been well a bit variable over time. The positions Christianity has had on lots of things have varied greatly over time, see premarital sex, extra-marital sex and many others.

Not a criminal offense? What farking.fantasy land are you living in? You could be killed for being gay and you know it.

Let it go, it wasn't accepted more back then as it is now.


Way to live up to your handle dude.
 
2012-05-10 10:30:17 PM  
I forgot to check the authorship but it sounds like something David Icke would put together. It would be perfect on the History Channel, squished in between Bigfoot and Illuminati documentaries.
 
2012-05-10 10:30:30 PM  
This is why I love Fark. This article--and the informative thread that follow it--have made me so happy. Cue the kitten hugging the yarn ball. Nice work, farkers.
 
2012-05-10 10:32:13 PM  

DeadGeek: Way to live up to your handle dude.


With a handle like that I assumed that was the point.

/A steaming pile of sock puppetry.
 
2012-05-10 10:32:26 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: The words of Christ Himself:

Matthew 5:27-28 ESV

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

I'm going to go park outside of Vegas and throw stones at all those men who are committing adultery.


Interesting that 'ol JC didn't say that if you looked at a man with lust in your heart you have committed adultery. Guess he was OK with gay lust.
 
2012-05-10 10:34:28 PM  

steamingpile: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Yeah that's not correct, but thanks for playing.

It is. The depictions of Basil I and John are consistent with a good number of other depictions dating as far back a few centuries before their time. Among historians it's pretty much been a settled matter for a few decades now. The real fun is what was going on in places like France where you have official church records of unions between two men. Also there's a few here and there across Europe, but for the most part most have shown up in France.

Arkanaut: TFA seems to be referring to this guy: Link; the wiki doesn't seem to have any reference to homosexuality or "his companion John".

TFA basically just quotes the work of historian John Boswell. Whose work is well known and fairly well regarded, except by those who don't like being told the past isn't exactly how they imagine it to be.

Look I know you want to believe this with your nylon fetish and all but if religion wouldn't accept divorce then why would they accept same sex at a time when it could be a criminal offense.

Don't push this it makes you stupid.


I bet you hated the movie Alexander because it represented Alexander the Great as taking men into his bed. I bet that upset you terrifically.

/'Oh no, I hated that movie because it sucked, not because it had gays in it.'
//'I did not see that movie'
 
2012-05-10 10:39:44 PM  

LovingTeacher: TheShavingofOccam123: The words of Christ Himself:

Matthew 5:27-28 ESV

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

I'm going to go park outside of Vegas and throw stones at all those men who are committing adultery.

Interesting that 'ol JC didn't say that if you looked at a man with lust in your heart you have committed adultery. Guess he was OK with gay lust.


To be fair, what "JC said" is a translation of a translation of an adaptation of a translation of a committee-approved version of a translation of a rewrite of a translation of hearsay from decades prior recorded in a dead language.
 
2012-05-10 10:42:02 PM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: Wait, you mean God...and Jesus...was okay with the homogays?

IN MY BIBLE? IN MY RELIGION!??!??!?!?!?!??!??!??!!!??!??!!!?


/end faux outrage.

However, I find this story very interesting and actually want to do a bit more research on the topic.


Have at it.

It seems like Boswell's book was pretty much panned by academics when it first came out in 1994. (One of the good things about working at a university - unlimited access to EBSCO and ProQuest to read book reviews from the mid-90's). And sadly, since Boswell died of AIDS shortly after the book was released, there's not going to be a revised edition responding to the critics.

As one of the few Catholics on Fark, I would desperately like for Boswell to have been right, and for the prohibition on gay marriage to have been a 14th Century social custom that somehow got put into the teaching of the Church. (I have a close friend from law school who is gay and very happily married, and spending time with him and his husband is what made me think that gay marriage isn't going to be the social disaster many think it will be.) But after reading some of the reviews of Boswell's book by other historians and theologians, I think Boswell was only seeing what he wanted to see, and I doubt his work is going to change many hearts or minds on the subject.
 
2012-05-10 10:43:15 PM  

gingerjet: but you have to twist a lot to come to the conclusions this author did.


No you don't. It was what it was, which is exactly what Boswell claims it is.

LovingTeacher: Interesting that 'ol JC didn't say that if you looked at a man with lust in your heart you have committed adultery. Guess he was OK with gay lust.


Well keep in mind what constituted adultery for Jesus is different from what it is now. Under Jewish law adultery was when a married man had sex with a married woman other than his wife. That was it.
 
2012-05-10 10:45:27 PM  

MrEricSir: They didn't take a position on abortion until what, the 20th century? Christian morality is incredibly inconsistent.

 
2012-05-10 10:45:56 PM  

steamingpile: OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.


So, the klan meeting in my town (when I lived in Stillwater,OK) when they hung the effigy of a black person and wrote all kinds of anti-gay slurs all over town... that wasn't persecution, or are you saying that maybe when I got jumped in FL, they were just beating the crap out of me while asking in a faux-british manner for cigarettes? The reality is that there's no good reason to be against equal rights for gay people, whether or not you call it persecution, it isn't fair to charge gay couples more taxes than straights, not allow them to visit partners in hospitals, not let them keep the house when their partner dies, and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Ultimately, the progress of history towards freedom and equality for all people is inexorable... you don't have to be "for" it... but you'd have to be delusional to think that you could, or should, stop it.
 
2012-05-10 10:46:38 PM  
Hmmm, Wiki has a whole list of the children of Basil the first.

Hmm, passage lifted from some dude named John Boswell...

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Centurywww.assoc-amazon.com

Crap. I thought I recognized that name. I have a copy of that book... In a UPS box for delivery tomorrow. I can't give the book a once over because I come across a copy about once a year.
 
2012-05-10 10:47:56 PM  

Kali-Yuga: But they weren't "real christians"!


CINOs?
 
2012-05-10 10:48:02 PM  

MasterThief: TheEdibleSnuggie: Wait, you mean God...and Jesus...was okay with the homogays?

IN MY BIBLE? IN MY RELIGION!??!??!?!?!?!??!??!??!!!??!??!!!?


/end faux outrage.

However, I find this story very interesting and actually want to do a bit more research on the topic.

Have at it.

It seems like Boswell's book was pretty much panned by academics when it first came out in 1994. (One of the good things about working at a university - unlimited access to EBSCO and ProQuest to read book reviews from the mid-90's). And sadly, since Boswell died of AIDS shortly after the book was released, there's not going to be a revised edition responding to the critics.

As one of the few Catholics on Fark, I would desperately like for Boswell to have been right, and for the prohibition on gay marriage to have been a 14th Century social custom that somehow got put into the teaching of the Church. (I have a close friend from law school who is gay and very happily married, and spending time with him and his husband is what made me think that gay marriage isn't going to be the social disaster many think it will be.) But after reading some of the reviews of Boswell's book by other historians and theologians, I think Boswell was only seeing what he wanted to see, and I doubt his work is going to change many hearts or minds on the subject.


I don't think any of it is a productive argument. One side believes in equal rights and letting other people be happy, the other side things that monogamy amongst gays will destroy their own marriages. It's pretty clear that fact and logic have no place in this battle.
 
2012-05-10 10:49:19 PM  

gimmegimme: To be fair, what "JC said" is a translation of a translation of an adaptation of a translation of a committee-approved version of a translation of a rewrite of a translation of hearsay from decades prior recorded in a dead language.


The Gospels were written in Greek, and we have copies of the text dating back to the second century. So we have a decent handle on what was written down. Interestingly enough what the Greek doesn't say, is the word divorce. It uses a different word, that means leaving. Which could strike someone as odd given there was a Greek word for divorce. The reason it wouldn't have been used deals with the context of Jesus' day. There were a good number of Jewish couples that were splitting, without meeting the requirements in order to obtain a proper divorce. It's those people, not those who actually divorced that Jesus was speaking out. And it's thanks to mistranslating the Greek into divorce or thinking of it as divorce that the Church came up with its stance of divorce. Not that it happened out of the blue or that everyone agreed early on.

MasterThief: But after reading some of the reviews of Boswell's book by other historians and theologians, I think Boswell was only seeing what he wanted to see, and I doubt his work is going to change many hearts or minds on the subject.


Some historians and theologians don't like it when someone shows up and points out that perhaps they're wrong like Boswell did. Some of the criticisms I've read of Boswell are utterly lacking in merit, they're just people who can't stand that he pointed out something they should've picked up on themselves. And for all the claims that it meant something else, there's scant little effort put forth to actually prove it.
 
2012-05-10 10:49:24 PM  

Eshkar: you want some fun research... look up "Natural Eunuchs" it turns out the Church around 300 CE changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean someone without equipment. In Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, and yes even ancient Israel there were two categories of Eunuchs (one Category had two subgroups), first they had unnatural Eunuchs which were either people born with a defect (hence unnatural) or the ones that were made Eunuchs. Then you had the second category, the Natural Eunuchs, they are born and remain 'fully functional' they just lack the inclination. They are what we would call Homosexuals. They weren't referred to as men because in order to be a man you had to have sex with women and produce babies. So in ancient law like in Israel when they said two men shouldn't lie together as one would with women, what they were really saying in today's vernacular is that two heterosexual men shouldn't have sex. Rome had the same kind of law as did Egypt. Though man could have sex with a Eunuch as long as the Eunuch was the passive partner. You look at ancient Roman law and it even outlines this. So when Jesus made reference to "Natural Eunuch's" when he was talking about marriage (remember the 'Gospels' weren't written down until around 70 CE in Rome and so they would have been using Roman Vernacular) he was making a reference to Homosexual Men when he said that there are Eunuchs born this way. The early church use to have Eunuch priest (gay ones, don't forget if your made a Eunuch or were born with a defect you weren't allowed in temple service), sadly those priest sided with the anti-Nicean group and after the Niceans won out they started to turn against all Eunuchs until finally they just changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean unnatural Eunuch and made sure that if any Natural Eunuchs were caught in homosexual acts they would be made unnatural Eunuchs.
So congrats to the world... you have helped and perpetuated a thousands+ year old vendetta by the Catho ...


Can I pay you to have Christmas dinner with my family?

And where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
2012-05-10 10:50:29 PM  

GhostFish: steamingpile: GhostFish: Nothing is gained from trying to push this.

There's no real evidence to support it, and no one that's against same-sex marriage is going to be swayed by it.

You only do yourself a disservice by spreading this circumstantial bullshiat.

Well hey what about the gay penguins?!?!?!?!

When its just a matter of numbers and genetic anomalies where scents are put forth, its the Jaime Lee Curtis variable.

Please do us all a favor and get a real hobby.


I have a hobby and its not giving a shiat who is sticking their dick in whom.

99% of the public doesn't care if you're gay or not, why do they have to force the issue by getting marriage on the docket? There are legal contracts that are more binding in a court than any marriage certificate, I should know I'm not married but the our document with the GF held more weight with the hospital than my own farking mother showing up.

Again let it farking go, in a very short time it will not be an.issue at all but pushing it like this is just prolonging the issues with gays.
 
2012-05-10 10:51:43 PM  
You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had its soldiers invading foreign countries, pillaging them and forcing its citizenry to convert to Christianity under pain of death? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report