|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
quote: Anyone know if this is true or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2888 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
I haven't been able to find anything on this, except Boswells book.
In 390 Christian emperors Valentinian II made homosexuality illegal, and even before that, there were laws somewhat against it. I can find any other who backs up Boswells interpretation of Adelphopoiesis, Wiki has this to say:
The historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, which sees the rite as a rite of familial adoption, as the term adelphopoiesis literally means "brother making". [1] Boswell's scholarship has been assailed as being of dubious quality.[2] Alternative views[3] are that this rite was used in many ways, such as the formation of permanent pacts between leaders of nations or between religious brothers. This was a replacement for "blood-brotherhood" which was forbidden by the church at the time. Others such as Brent Shaw have maintained also that these unions were more akin to "blood-brotherhood" and had no sexual connotation.
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Records from England parish churches show marriages of two men throughout the medieval period.
Church attitudes to homosexuality have certainly varied with time and place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Really??? I've never heard that. Do you have any references? Very interesting...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
if it is true then like we said earlier the definition of marriage changes, and we need to define it into law so that we can move on in the 21st century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Taz writes: Anyone know if this is true or not? MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Plus ca change....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Why? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
This appear to refer to Adelphopoiesis (Wikipedia link). Seems the rite is quite certain, but the interpretation of it as "gay marriage" is contraversial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
I don't I'm afraid. I'll try and dig some up for you when I have time. I did find this about affrrement in France, which appears to be effectively a Civil Union.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Thank you to all those who have responded. Life has been more busy than I anticipated. Can't say I have time for anything anymore.
Just a reminder for our resident haters that whether there was such a thing as a christian gay marriage in the distant past or not has absolutely nothing to do with how society should treat some of our members nowadays. In other words, you keep your religion of hate to yourselves and we'll keep our intolerance of your intolerance to ourselves. I started this thread out of pure curiosity. Nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Why? Wouldn't that be in the best interests of everyone? The same problem occurred with bitter debates about what constitutes "human life" and when human life begins. This seems like another controversy that just needs to be put to rest by coming up with a clear definition for legal reasons, if nothing else. But at a minimum, I think it should be a state's decision. Let each state decide for itself. So far California and Massachussets have the broadest scope of homosexual marriages or civil unions in the nation.
Of course this is only inclusive to the United States. As for other countries, it's your country, do what sovereign nations do and run your own country how your countrymen see fitting. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
NJ writes:
Exactly! And keep it the hell out of Social Security. But at a minimum, I think it should be a state's decision. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Wouldn't that be in the best interests of everyone? The same problem occurred with bitter debates about what constitutes "human life" and when human life begins. This seems like another controversy that just needs to be put to rest by coming up with a clear definition for legal reasons, if nothing else. Has the implementation of a legal definition reduced the controversy at all? Genuine question. I am not suggesting it has not or that it has.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Has the implementation of a legal definition reduced the controversy at all? Genuine question. I am not suggesting it has not or that it has. Well, no, it hasn't in many people's eyes. The Defense of Marriage Act plainly states that marriage constitutes a legal union between one man and one woman. But I don't think this should be a government issue. To countries that don't have states, it may seem bizarre to have different laws, but I don't think the Federal government should have the right to intrude upon what the people want democratically. The way it works is you have inalienable rights enumerated by the Constitution. Nothing can trump this. A state cannot decide all of a sudden that it doesn't agree with something Constitutionally protected. Then you have the United States Code, which lists Federal laws. And then you have state Constitutions and state laws. I live on a federal base, so California law does not pertain to me when on federal property. However, as soon as I cross the gate, I am then subject to the laws of California. Think of an UK embassy in another country. When on that property, you are subject to English law, when off it, you are subject to the host nations laws. Anyhow, since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage whatsoever, the Federal government should have no say in what the people of each state want to vote for democratically. I therefore think that each state, being both unified and independent, should have the right to a democratic vote. “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: So does that mean that you think states should have the right to ban interracial marriages? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024