I am no more a bigot that those who are pro-gay marriage are towards those of us who are not by definition:
quote: big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There are differing opinions on the issue and both sides are valid in their opinions. You can't discount one sides voice because you "disagree" or it doesn't fit "your set of morals". You can't say their voice isn't theirs to place on their own.
It is not my place to tell you what your "voice" should be. That is for you to decide.
Nor should anyone NOT make their "voice" on the matter heard because someone else thinks it's "wrong".
In this election there is the Democratic process. It is the forum for the people to place their votes and make their opinions heard and control the government that is set up "for the people, by the people".
In this election there were initiatives on multiple ballots concerning Marriage and the new hot topic of "Gay Marriage" which was thrust upon the nation by courts in certain parts of some states.
It is important that the voice of the people NOT be silenced regardless of your opinion. In a democracy, all votes count. It is wrong to say that those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't have voted against it because "you say so". That is not democracy and is akin to saying, "Gays shouldn't have the right to vote".
In the election, the voice of the people in those areas were of varying majorities in approving Heterosexual Marriage only as per the traditions and laws of the country from it's founding until present.
You may disagree with their view, but that is the democratic process.
I find it interesting that many cried foul over the 2000 election because the candidate that carried the "Popular" vote, didn't win the election and that it was "stolen" from them.
Now we have a "Majority" vote on the definition of Marriage and Marriage Law, but we dispute it.
Democracy didn't fail in this election. It suceeded in forwarding the wishes of the people for representation in government of their views. You can't discard democracy because it doesn't "fall your way".
If your view fails in a democracy it's very bad to blame the "other side" for their views instead of blaming yourself for your lack of understanding of their reasoning.
Many factors may have contributed to the election's results.
My feeling is that it is the reaction of the people through democracy in response to the attempted hijack of democracy by certain courts in the last year.
If you voted for Gore and feel the Supreme Court "robbed" you of your vote in 2000, you may get a sense of what Social Conservatives have felt the last year in regards to Marriage Preservation on paper at least. Look at the last couple of years of Judicial outcomes with regards to Social Conservatism to see what has forged the vote results you have before you.
Trying to force the beliefs of the minority upon those of the majority without compromise and without respect for that opposition gets you this election outcome. Will CONTINUE to get this kind of election outcome.
If you bet it all, you stand to lose it all. In this past year all of it has been bet, and all of it was lost.
When you stand at the end of the day and have nothing to show for it, and maybe even less than you had to begin with (at least some open mindedness vs. polarizing your opposition against you) maybe settling for equal "Civil Unions" instead of trying to force "Gay Marriage" would have been the way to go.
But make no mistake about it. If you have a vast populace, that is the majority in some places and you spit in their faces and try to force your views upon their government, when it comes time for those you spit on to make their voice known, don't be suprised if all the "compromise" that may have been available earlier is gone.
So now there's a choice. We can go to "war" so to speak and volley back and forth until you force your views upon the people (as happened in the Civil War, in which the North won, but it took 100 years for blacks to become equal citizens due to the backlash, and it was horrible backlash for 100 years.) which breeds a "hatred" that no one wants.
Or there can be a respect for the views of the opposition and a compromise. A way for you to get what you want and the opposition to get what they want.
For the voice of both sides to be counted and respected and instituted.
But make no mistake about it. Democracy worked in this election as it should.
This is just my opionion, so blast away.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is wrong to say that those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't have voted against it because 'you say so.'"
Who here is saying that? Most of the people saying that others should not have voted against gay marriage have offered some very concrete reasons for that claim.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or there can be a respect for the views of the opposition and a compromise. A way for you to get what you want and the opposition to get what they want.
Some views are so anathema to me that I can't compromise with them. I'm sorry to say that your own view on this topic is one such.
Let's face it, not all political views are morally acceptable. David Duke's aren't. It just depends on where you draw the line. "Bigoted" may be the wrong word, but it's just not right to make concessions to a position that is (as I see it) flat-out immoral.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you stand at the end of the day and have nothing to show for it, and maybe even less than you had to begin with (at least some open mindedness vs. polarizing your opposition against you) maybe settling for equal "Civil Unions" instead of trying to force "Gay Marriage" would have been the way to go.
The part that really makes me angry is not that "Gay Marriage" is forbidden, it's that some of the laws that passed practically forbade anything even remotely LIKE marriage. So basically, they're saying, "No marriage for you gays, and nothing like it either!!!!"
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let's face it, not all political views are morally acceptable. David Duke's aren't. It just depends on where you draw the line. "Bigoted" may be the wrong word, but it's just not right to make concessions to a position that is (as I see it) flat-out immoral.
And you in that paragraph summed up the exact sentiments of the opposition towards your views and led to the election results you now have through the democratic process.
Continuing to have the same "attitude" you have will continue to get the same "attitude" in response. If you don't like the outcome of the election, try approaching the problem with an open mind.
Force will only get you force in return.
As for the term "bigot".
And remember that the constitution in reality, and in all honesty ANY government exists at the whim of the people. The constitution wasn't a socialist/communistic document forced upon an unwilling populace majority.
It was ratified by the majority before it was accepted and if the majority ever feels it no longer serves their needs, it can and will be removed, changed, etc. through ammendments etc.
Those who cling to a 200 year old document while spiting on it's founding principles, are not far from spitting on it itself.
There is room and opportunity for both sides to get what they want, or we can go on fighting and one side will lose more than they currently have.
A "war" so to speak will hurt both sides. I personally don't want to see years and years of hurt, anger, disenfranchisement, etc. and polarization.
posted
Hey, I'll continue to stand up for what I believe, and they'll continue to do the same. May the best man win. I'm willing to be pragmatic about a lot of things, but not basic civil liberties.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hey, I'll continue to stand up for what I believe, and they'll continue to do the same. May the best man win. I'm willing to be pragmatic about a lot of things, but not basic civil liberties.
If it's "All or nothing" as you state, then I hope my side wins as well, but realize that if they do, one side will be left with nothing.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to say for the record, the United States is not a democracy. True democracy, according to Thomas Jefferson, is "tyranny of the majority".
The United States is a republic, whose job it is to protect the minority from the abuse and oppression of the majority. We are bound by the Constitution to not pass laws that infringe upon the rights of the minority, no matter what the majority thinks about it. These bans of same sex marriage are not Constitutional.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things I personally find ironic with regards to the American 'morality' movement is the massive weighting of sexuality in the moral conciousness.
An example of this is the region one edit of "Dawn of the Dead". A naked zombie chick is edited out of the film - by splattering a gory mess over the area of the screen showing her breasts.
It seems that violence barely makes it into the moral viewpoint, but there's an uber-sensitivity to anything vaguely sexual...
Which most of the western world finds utterly baffling.... Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:The wise Frisco told us: You neglected to mention the U.S. Constitution, which can be used to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
I was going to pop in and say this, but a couple of you already have! Excellent.
I think gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a matter for the majority to decide on based on individual senses of morality. The courts need to decide whether or not homosexuality is a natural state (or a choice) and need to decide what the implications are on the rights issues gays are fighting for.
The Constitution does need to protect the minorities. And sometimes what's fair and consistent don't match some people's wishes or moral standards.
All that and I don't think it's very moral to restrict homosexuals from many basic partner-rights at all.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troubadour, my experience is that showing sex is attractive to most people, and violence is not. Generally, when a person looks at sex, the response (on some level) is, "Ooooh, I want to do that". Conversely, most people seeing violence (if it is realistic) respond with "Yuck! I hope that never happens to me!" It seems natural that film would treat two subjects with such different responses differently, even though both are regarded as immoral.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, you and I are about as far apart on this issue as we can be. But (if it isn't too impertinant to say) I can see you are making a concerted effort to say it in a way that permits discourse, as opposed to other ways it could be done.
I really, really appreciate the concession. I see it, and I note it.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you were to replace 'Gay' in 'Gay Marriage' to 'inter-racial' would these bans be acceptable? I don't think they would be. So why is it acceptable with 'gay'? In my mind race and sexual orientation are both not chosen attributes. They are just part of a person's being. To discriminate based on either is just wrong.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The secret to this debate is to try and decipher why the other side disagrees with you.
If you ask someone why they are passionate about banning gay marriages by law, they won't talk about sin or homosexuality.
They talk about Liberal Activist Judges.
The whole Gay Marriage Ban is a ploy by non-Christian Republicans to get good Christian's to vote for them--the Wolf in Shepherds Clothing routine.
The second and more deadly assault of this ploy will fall when impartial judges void these laws as being illegal. They go against previous laws or federal constitutional standards.
The people who voted for these laws will be whipped up into a frenzy by the Wolves. They will not accept the judical responses. Those judges will face removal, or new, political judges will be put in place--truly activist judges who will not get in the way of thier politcal wolf bosses.
Some will call for the entire judicial system to be torn down. If that were to happen the check and balance system set up 200+ years ago will be threatened.
All so these wolves can consolidate their power and become the emporers they believe themselves to be.
Mean while, those who would fight this destruction are distracted and confused by the obvious gay issue. The middle will call for Civil Unions and others will talk of Separate but Equal.
That all doesn't matter.
This is not an attack on the Gay community.
It is an attack, a successful attack, on the legal system. The soldiers in this army think they are defending Christ and Church and morality.
What they are doing is attacking the courts and helping the least Christian amongst us--those who use the church for their own worldly ends.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wrote something along the lines that follow on another thread, but I think the dynamics are more complex than are being acknowledged by fellow supporters of same-sex couples entering into legally-recognized marriages.
This issue hit the nonpolitical heterosexual community pretty much by surprise. First, with a court decision in Massachussetts.
But there was a second wave as well - this was followed by announcements by the mayors of more than one city that current definitions of "marriage" would be ignored, resulting in a huge parade of same-sex couples getting married. Those who were troubled by the idea of same-sex marriage saw this as an assault on the law as well.
Was it really so hard to see the backlash that would result? These referendums were passed by HUGE majorities and can't be laid at the doorstep of just one segment of the religious community. While it would be nice to think that people can accept radical change in a short time, it's unrealistic. Just ask the African-American community about their (cough) "overnight" successes in outlawing school segregation and Jim Crow laws in general.
The reason I bring this up is that I think the most useful thing one can do as an advocate for change is to look critically at one's own tactics and how they may have contributed to setbacks. It's the only way to keep from repeating failed approaches and strategies.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose you're right, Steve. Change always takes time. It's just frustrating to live in an age when people haven't yet realized what's just and unjust.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "age when people haven't yet realized what's just and unjust" has extended from the beginning of civilization and will only close when the last person disappears from the Earth.
posted
Dan, I have real trouble with seeing the judicial system as the fall guy in this. I actually think one reason the country is in trouble is because judges do not feel responsible to the people. I have begun thinking of the Supreme Court as the Oligarchy of Nine....once appointed, they are responsible to nothing and no one. I read every now and then about the horror of the "President-for-Life", but no one cares about "Justices-for-Life".
Don't get me wrong. I understand why the justices are selected the way they are and do not serve for a set term. But justices are perfectly capable of being partisan on their own without any help from voters or parties, and there seems to be little check on their power.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of you point out the goal of the neo-cons. They can't take over the Supreme Court easilly with their spin and politicing, so they spread the idea that it is a totoletarian dictatorship out of the hands of the people.
Well, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!
The power of the people can and will be corrupted by people like Karl Rove.
So what is the power of the Surpreme Court that we are so fearful of? What armies do they control? What laws do they pass? What money do they give or take away?
None.
They take the law that is given to them and determine its value, as they see it.
If a law is passed that undermines the rights of a few, they say that is wrong and the law is removed.
That is their dangerous power that Anti-Activists are scaring people with. They want these legal representatives to be nothing more than elected officials who owe their jobs and their futures to their political party or their political bosses.
You say that it is dangerous to have judges for life? I say that it is more dangerous to have judges in debt to political power brokers, who have their jobs for life, and don't have the publicity that Judges do.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The reason I bring this up is that I think the most useful thing one can do as an advocate for change is to look critically at one's own tactics and how they may have contributed to setbacks. It's the only way to keep from repeating failed approaches and strategies.
This goes right along with what I was saying in another thread.
The Gay Marriage issue failed because it was handled as Gay Marriage. By defining your issues based on sexual prefference, and a religious pact (marriage), then you have already polarized voters, and the majority is not on your side.
The issue here needs to be handled as civil rights infringements in the cases of property and custody laws. Because those are the actual issues at hand.
If you want to argue that religion and sexual prefference should not be a factor when it comes to civil liberties, then you have to define the laws in a way that exclude those also.
By calling for "Gay Marriage" you have just asked for sexual preference and religious ceremony to be brought into the law... granted marriage already is a lawful contract, which means you also need to deal with the definition of marriage or get rid of it completely, but you still cannot ask for equal rights for the individual if you are setting up the individual in the law as seperate from society.
HOWEVER
I still say you then have to take a long hard look at what the consequences of changing the institute of marriage to include same sex partners (not just couples, because this would apply to any two people who wish to own something together regardless of their sexuality or love for one another) will have on society over time.
quote:(not just couples, because this would apply to any two people who wish to own something together regardless of their sexuality or love for one another)
I think this is has no weight in a discussion of gay marriage. There are already man-woman marriages of convenience, and the law tries hard to find them out (re: Sara asking Tom for affirmation as to her own split-country marriage). Why this would suddenly changes things in that venue seems unclear to me. Unlikely, in fact.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thinbg is, "Gay Marriage" mainly has been portrayed as religious by conservatives. No liberal has advocated forcing any religion to accept gay unions as marriages in their terms. The courts (yes, even that darned Goodrich Decision up here in MA) have been clear that the extension of marriage rights is only within the areas where the government provides tangible legal benefits, aka legal marriage.
So I think it says more about how conservatives are casting this issue themselves, than anything liberals are doing.
I would agree with you on the marriage thing EXCEPT, Bob Barr from Georgia is the one that tied Civil Unions (which was what the Gay community was shooting for in 1996) to Gay Marriage. HE is the one that politicized and demonized it in order to push his Anti Gay agenda. DOMA anyone? Barr was the author.
The term "Gay Marriage" first surfaced in 1996 in response to Vermont's Civil Union legislation. Bob Barr of Georgia and several other "conservative" legislators used to the team to negatively politicize Vermont's legal initiative and pass the Defense of Marriage Act of 1997.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is with definitions and clarity. The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage issue, for me, is the use of the word marriage. The vast majority of history has treated marriage as a one man/one woman issue. When I bring this up, invariably people will jump on me and list a dozen different types of situations throughout history where marriage didn't necessarily consist of one man and one woman. The problem with this line of logic is that the majority rules, not the minority. Even if you could convince me that 30% of the people on Earth had a union that consisted of something besides one man and one woman, and I seriously doubt you could, it still wouldn't change the fact that the general usage of the word marriage has been one man/one woman.
Yes, the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the majority. All that says is that the gays are welcome to have unions and call them marriages. What it does NOT say is that the majority has to concede and call them marriages too. The Constitution gives gays the right, as far as I can see, to form legal unions, share property, and so forth, but it can not force the American people to refer to those unions with any word that they do not choose. Calling them carnivals or dance parties or sleepovers does not infringe upon the rights of the gay community.
Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union. Changing it to include many different types of unions does not give those unions more power, it only lessens the effectiveness of the word. Calling a man that dates your mother "Daddy" is your prerogative, but don't be surprised when people get confused. Telling the guy that paints your house that you want it purple when what you really want is red is up to you, but don't get mad at him with you look outside and your house isn't red. Begging the painter to relabel all his red paint as purple doesn't help anyone. All it does is make a person have to work harder when describing what color they want their house.
"I want the house to be purple." "Do you mean the purple at the low-frequency end of the spectrum?" "No, I want the high-frequency purple."
If you had just left red as red, it wouldn't have changed a bit of it's attractiveness. And you could have just said "purple" when asking for your paint color.
Make up a word for gay unions. I don't care what it is. Using a different word for clarity's sake doesn't change anything about the union.
And even changing the definition of the word marriage in the dictionary to include gay unions doesn't change what the majority of history has used it for.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, absolutely. It is only those rights and priviledges that go along with marriage that is important right now. There are plenty of mainstream churches that perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples that, within their community, are as binding as powerful spiritually and socially as marriages performed for men and women. That will never change because the law can't touch the content of a religious ceremony.
And I don't think blaming the liberals for their how they present their message is fair. For something to be considered "illegal" I would think it would ahve to stand up to some level of scrutiny that could show in some manner the harm or damages done by that act.
In all the dogma about preventing gay 'marriage' and things that LOOK like marriage, I have yet to see one bit of proof of how any of the currently married gay couples (from the religious marriages that have happened for a while or the more recently "legal" ones that happened in Mass. and SF) has in any way harmed an existing married couple or the institution of marriage. Not a whit. Are there any other victimless laws that have such a low threshold of proof? There are many pro-gun advocates who chafe at any suggestion of more gun control, even though SOME unintentional harm will happen eventually in an armed society. There are statistics that show people being hurt by their own guns but the level doesn't rise, in their opinion, to the level of concern that needs more laws. Drug legalization folks say the same thing. Sure people get addicted to illegal drugs but there are plenty more marijuana users who never get addicted.
And these are contested with acknowledged harm.
There is absolutely no real cost to Americans if a gay couple can have shared custody of a child. There is no additional cost to society if a gay married couple shares job benefits (no more cost than a male/female marriage, that is). There is no cost to society if a gay man has the ability to make decisions about his spouses medical care in times of need. There are no new/additional costs to society if a gay man can inherit his spouses money after he passes away (again, no more/less than a male/female married couple).
Has a marriage ever broken up because a gay couple down the street got married? Are less people getting male/female marriages because two women around the block decided they wanted to get hitched?
Can anyone point out any real costs to this? I don't mean "what ifs" or "straw man" arguments that can't be proved. Clearly people feel some threat or they wouldn't have turned out in record numbers to restrict a fellow citizen's rights.
Though pro-choice with regards to abortion, I can at least see how if someone considers a bundle of cells a human life how they could see it as murder. I can see the harm in it. I can see the harm it could cause a pregnant woman, both physically and socially and emotionally. It is why I am so torn on the issue (pro-life for self along with my spouse but don't feel I can speak for society on this).
But with gay marriage I can't BEGIN to fathom how there is any known harm for such a situation.
Please, honestly, someone tell me the real, quantifiable harm of two men or two women getting married in all legal senses of the word (religous aside as that is strictly personal).
posted
"Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union."
This is not in fact the case. In fact, I have a book from the 1600s which refers to the marriage of two pieces of wood.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union
PSI, speaking of English, I don't know many words in our confusing language that has only one definition. "Marriage" isn't a color with a limited definition (and then, even "Red" or "Purple" have a ton of definitions beyond their color descriptions..."Red China" doesn't refer to the color of their flag alone nor does "Purple prose" refer to the color of the print...). There can be a marriage of two ideas (chocolate and peanut butter), a marriage of card in penochle (did I spell that correctly) or a marriage of two people. Please tell me a time that the English language became a static one. Honestly, do tell.
If it is the language issue alone I could argue that while knowing that at least the people in "marriages" were having the same rights as those men and women in marriages. But the fact is a number of these amendments went the step further and said that things that LOOK like marriage are also not recognized. Civil Unions or Wacky Association, whatever the name the conservatives took a giant step beyond simply "historical definitions."
posted
Saying that red has different uses doesn't change the fact that it would be very confusing to start calling purple "red". Yes, many of our words have different uses in different contexts. Yes, English is a pain in the butt to learn. But to use one word to refer to two legally similar things as if they were exactly the same doesn't help anyone.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't see how a person's genitals make the difference. How is that the absolute? Does every marriage require consummation? No. Does every marriage require birth children? No. How about love? Nope (see arranged marriages and marriages where they don't divorce for the children's sake). But genitals? You think that because you don't have a penis but your partner does, that THAT's important?
posted
Help me out, then. Legally, men and women are the same thing? Saying that they have the same rights doesn't equate to saying that they are exactly the same.
Suneun, are you talking to me? Or just anyone who doesn't support gay marriage? I thought by now everyone would have guessed that I don't believe that sex is only related to anatomy.
posted
Then for the purposes of this argument, define sex/gender for me. I know gender's come up, but I don't remember your specific take.
I think the point of the matter is, why this one deciding factor when so many other things aren't absolute when it comes to marriage?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, the problem is that the word has been codified in our LAW as a legal, tangible thing. Were it so that we could go back and make sure that those who put marriage on the law books had used something more neutral!
The liberals aren't trying to change YOUR definition of marriage, PSI. At worse they are trying to modify an existing sub-definition, pertaining to a very particular context (the law of the United States of America).
quote: My problem is with definitions and clarity. The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage issue, for me, is the use of the word marriage. The vast majority of history has treated marriage as a one man/one woman issue. When I bring this up, invariably people will jump on me and list a dozen different types of situations throughout history where marriage didn't necessarily consist of one man and one woman.
Really?
Irish Times, August 11, 1998 Dublin, Ireland
When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.
Opinion: Rite and Reason by Jim Duffy
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.
Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy didn't fail in this election. It suceeded in forwarding the wishes of the people for representation in government of their views. You can't discard democracy because it doesn't "fall your way".
If your view fails in a democracy it's very bad to blame the "other side" for their views instead of blaming yourself for your lack of understanding of their reasoning.
Was democracy working when overwhelming majorities supported the oppression of blacks in the south?
No - "success" is not just a matter of the most popular side winning. It is a matter of the BEST side winning. If the majority picks the wrong side, then democracy is failing, even though the people have spoken. That is why having wise and educated voters is critical for a functioning democracy. If voters are wrong, the wrong ideas will become the law, and democracy will fail.
This is why America is not a complete democracy. We are a combination of a democracy, an aristocracy, and a rule by constitutional law. The people cannot decide all things, and often certain branches of government overrule the people, and sometimes even the Constitution itself can overrule the wishes of the people.
And if one side doesn't win in a democracy then the other side IS to blame. After all, if the other side wasn't there voting against you, your side would have won!
posted
I guess partly because it's one thing that's been more or less concrete. Yeah, there have been some things that have been different in some ways; some people have mention communes or similar, but the one man, one woman has been pretty consistent, as much as it could have been.
As far as gender is concerend, I believe God created man and woman to be counterparts for each other, and that their anatomy is just a physical expression of that. But I can't force people to believe that.
I really do get irked at the issue of clarity. People don't want to offend others. I understand that. But you can't change everything just because I few people are upset. If only one person in all of America believed that gay unions should be called marriages, should we go along with their whims? Is one person's opinion enough to change something big? How about five people? Against everyone else in the country? Do we change a language to make them happy? Do we stop using the word automobile because five people in America don't like it? What about fifty? How many people does it take to justify changing something that is very important to most people?
In my opinion, it takes the majority.
Bookwyrm: Not only did you not absorb my whole post, you didn't even read the entire piece you quoted.
The minority does not rule. List five thousand homosexual unions and you still haven't shown me a majority, or even a tiny fraction.
posted
PSI, it's worth noting that what to call these unions is in fact the least important aspect of the whole discussion. None of the amendments recently passed permitted gay unions under some other name, because that's not the bit people care about.
What people want to make sure is that gays can't have relationships as respected or as valued by society as straights.
------
If I were the only agnostic in the whole country, PSI, do you believe you would have the right to force me to pray to your god?
posted
The majority does not get to decide to legally discriminate against a minority. It just doesn't. In time, people will look back at this and shake their heads about how sad it all was, just like we do now when we look back at our former legal discrimination against blacks.
It's just a matter of time.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but I believe the church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400 years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, you're resigning them to thankless, under-the-table relationships, for one part.
But I understand the distinction you're trying to make: that you aren't forcing someone to do something, but rather not permitting someone to do something. And you believe that there is a major distinction.
To this, I reply only that we should really remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Do you agree?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not you, PSI, not specifically. I'm not talking about the language - I'm not that concerned about the language. What I wrote was directly in response to the original post, actually. Sorry for just jumping in, I didn't meant to cause confusion.
My whole point is that this is a civil rights issue, a discrimination issue, and not truly a semantics issue. As often happens, I think the words are mostly just getting in the way of what's really happening here.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Legally enter into an agreement called marriage, in this specific case. "You" being a rather broad term, of course.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not stopping them from calling it marriage. I'm just refusing to do it myself, and refusing to let them force other Americans to call it that.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
