| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36682 Activity:very high |
3/14 The argument for gay marriage is that it's their own business and
doesn't affect anyone else, since its private matter between
two grown up adults and they have the rights to choose how
they live. But why does the argument breaks down for other
things that both party agrees to, like marriage/sex with a
minor, hiring someone to kill myself (doctor, give me the
death pill)? It seems if we allow gay marriage, then we should
not ban other types of marriage as well, as long as both party
are ok with it, such as multiple marriages, father/daughter,
mother/son, brothers/sisters, humans and animals, etc. Any
thoughts? Just because gay people are on TV doesn't make it
more 'right' than any of the other banned marriage types.
\_ Not to mention the fraud implications of instituting gay
marriage...
\_ uh, what?
\_ uh, think about it?
\_ uh, what?
\_ you can't be that dumb.
\_ Part of marriage is consent, and legally being able to enter into
a contract -- children and animals cannot give consent. Polygamy
is a more grey area but it can be argued that divorce situations
would become too difficult to resolve. The real solution is for
the government to get out of marriage altogether and just issue
civil unions, with only churches being able to marry people. The
civil unions give you all the legal rights marriage does today,
while the churches have the right to grant marriage to only those
they deem fit. And this argument isn't that persuasive anyhow,
for the simple reason that saying "giving rights to group X means
we'll have to give it to group Y" doesn't mean group X shouldn't
get said rights. Does "If we give black people the right to sit
at whites-only lunch counters, that means we'll have to let horses
and sheep in as well" make any sense?
\_ yes you are right, giving various rights to married woman and
man doesn't mean we have to give similar "rights" to garried
man and man.
\_ Except there are very good reasons to let men marry men
and women marry women, just like there are very good reasons
to let black people sit at whites-only lunch counters.
\_ Pray tell, what are these good reasons?
Racial segregation was based on the false
premise that there were "races", whereas
the denial of marriage rights to gays is
not based on any such false premise.
\_ The good reasons are obvious to anyone but a bigoted
moron. Two men or women in a long-term committed
relationship deserve visitation rights, survivorship
rights, etc. -tom
\_ Go man! Thanks for fighting for my right to enter a marriage with
my lovely sister!
\_ Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a
healthy society tested over thousands of years. Other forms
of unions like father daughter, gay men, etc. are not.
Hire a lawyer and draw up your own legal documents if you want,
just don't call it marriage.
\_ Not to mention the inevitable consequences of evolution,
extinction.
\_ Yes, since once gay marriage is legal, hetero marriage will
become illegal -- And the world's population is already
shrinking at an alarming pace.
\_ The world's population is shrinking???
\_ Your sarcasm detector is in need of repair
\_ Your claim about history is simply not true. -tom
\_ Really? Prove it.
\_ How about we say a civil union can be between a man and a woman,
or a couple of the same sex -- all other laws about bigamy and
incest still applying. Then good Christian churches in San
Francisco can call civial unions between gays and lesbians
marriage, and you can retain your right to not call such civil
unions marriage.
\_ A dog is a dog. A cat is a cat. you can try
calling a dog a cat, but it's still a dog and
everyone will think you are an idiot.
\_ your troll-fu is weak!
\_ You do realize not all the rights of a married couple can
be solved with a legal contract don't you? For instance
I can't file my taxes as a married couple (just one of
many examples.) Oh and metal protests to the contrary you
many examples.) Oh and mental protests to the contrary you
a bigot and a homophobe. Have a nice day.
\_ you should ask the question why there should be such
a relationship called marriage that allows two people
to file a joint tax return in the first place.
\_ One of many rights. One of the most obvious because
everyone does taxes every year so they are aware of the
laws. Not everyone has to deal with, say, custody battles
every year. Or medical emergencies. Etc etc. And if
you want to get rid of marriage altogether, well, I
wish you luck. I'm not sure it is a good idea but
if you can make a compelling reason for there to be
no "special couple (or group?)" rights at all, then
by all means convince me. That's another conversation.
\_ what I mean is that there are reasons why we attach
various legal rights and responsibilities to
marriage (the one between a woman and a man).
Those reasons no longer apply when it's
garriage.
\_ joint tax return and partner benefits should be
100% applicable to gay marriage. Why wouldn't they
be? -tom
\_ I don't think you understood what I was saying.
\_ Then perhaps you should explain it better.
All you did was make an assertion. -tom
\_ you're an idiot. -Tom
\_ Genocide, slavery, discrimination, religious persecution, etc.,
have been part of history for thousands of years as well.
\_ you got the "thousands of years" part, but you forgot the
"foundation" part.
\_ That can be argued
\_ Not supporting gay marriage is in no way comparable to
these things. Please tell me how the rights of a gay
man (or woman) have been abridged.
A gay man has the same rights as any other man to marry
any woman he choses. Similarly a gay woman can marry
any man she choses. Gays and non-gays have the same
exact set of rights.
What gays are asking for is EXTRA rights above and
beyond what the average person is entitled to. What
is so special about them that requires that we give
them something which all other people do not have?
It is not as if they are blind or deaf or cripple,
or were formerly treated as chattel. Why should a
person's private choices about their lifestyle
entitle them to EXTRA public rights?
Now if you want to tell me about sex-change people,
then perhaps I can agree that these people may have
less rights.
\_ And when mixed race marriages were illegal everyone
had the exact same rights, they were allowed to
marry someone of the same race. Gee why all the fuss?
\_ The issue of mixed race marriage is wholly
different than that of gay marriage b/c
there is really no such thing as separate
races. To abridge the rights of a person
based on a false characteristic violates
the fundamental principle of equality.
Unless you are willing to claim that gender
is a false characteristic, look elsewhere.
NOTE: I don't care what gay people do w/
their lives and I think that it is wrong
to discriminate in hiring, &c. based on
the fact that a person is gay (or watches
B5 instead of Star Trek).
\_ There is no such thing as separate races? Next thing
you'll tell me is gays are human beings!
\_ There is no such thing as separate races?
Next thing you'll tell me is gays are human
beings!
\_ That there cannot be separate races
is obvious from evolutionary theory
and has been generally confirmed by
genetic studies. There is also no
doubt that gays are human beings.
So what? It leaves unchanged the
idea that the private choices of
some people ought to create some
extra right for them.
\_ I think if the current trend continues, assisted suicide will
eventually become legal. So are polygamy and father/daughter, etc.
if the laws can be modified such that the involved people can sign
declarations like "I hereby declare that I only deserve one third
the right of being the wife to Mr. X" or "We hereby irrevokably
sever our relationship as brother/sister" so as to avoid legal
nightmare. But marriage/sex with a minor or an animal will probably
never pass, since a minor or an animal can't give consent.
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ That's such an insightful comment tom!
\_ It's insightful because it is true
\_ I agree with tom. -!tom
\- Hola, if you are interested in one perspective on the
history of homosexuals in "christendom", you may wish
to read John Boswell of Yale (dead?). He has at least
two books on the subject:
http://csua.org/u/bcs
http://csua.org/u/bct
\_ If a man marries a man and a woman marries a woman, they
will become extinct. If for thousands of years the
foundation has been based on that, human race will be
extinct. It's not the way nature intended it to be. I am
certainly not advocating we kill them all, like we do when
chickens and cows catch a disease, but it is a 'problem'.
It especially sickens me when gay couples wants to adopt a
child. It's like you proudly declares to the world you cut
off your penis, and then wants to surgically install a
penis because you need one. If you want to be gay, don't
fucking complain about not able to have a baby.
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ Should single people be able to adopt?
\_ I hope this is a troll, it would be hard to imagine anyone
being so bigoted in the 21st century. I assume you are against
IVF, viagra, birth control, etc.?
\_ No, only gay that wants to have kids.
\_ Do you have any idea how many kids are abandoned every
year? Fuck you.
\_ And all the sex change shit.
\_ Gay marriage advocates, I want to "union" with my sister (or
maybe brother) with all the rights and responsibilities of
a garriage. However, I want to cut out anything that has
to do with sex with said sister (or brother) cause I am not
interested in their respective sexual organs. What do you
think of that?
\_ I think you're an idiot. -tom
\_ why?
\_ Because you exhibit so much evidence of it?
\_ How come you can redefine marriage and I can't?
What is the basis for marriage?
What is the basis for marriage? Just because
a relationship is consensual, doesn't mean it
should have the rights and obligations of
marriage. Being consensual, alone, is not
enough.
\_ The consensual part was in refence to people
marrying sheep and children.
\_ Why not?
\_ Why not? Why isn't it being consensual enough?
\_ What does being married mean? How is it
different from other types of relationships?
While you can try to define a marriage in legal
terms, ultimately, our laws surrounding
marriage were made to cater to this age old
relationship between a man and a woman which
is the foundation of society. The laws are
for the relationship and not the other way
around. Now, the question is, should the
laws be extended to a gay relationship?
\_ Times change, people change. Slavery
was the foundation of society for thousands
of years. And then it wasn't.
\_ The comparision btwn gay marriage
and slavery is intellectually
dishonest. A slave had virtually
no rights under the law whereas
a gay man or woman enjoys all
rights that every other person
of their gender enjoys.
BTW, slavery was not the basis
of every society for thousands
of years.
\_ And after slavery, blacks had all the
rights of whites--they could still ride
the bus, they just had to sit in the
back. -tom |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/bcs -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-3858459-5085603?v=glance&s=books&st=* DVD Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly The acceptance and sanctification of homosexual relations in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches during Medieval Europe are examined in this s cholarly work. From Library Journal Not since Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Un iv. Diligently research ed and documented, this immensely scholarly work covers everything from the "paired" saints of Perpetua and Felicitas and Serge and Bacchus to l esbian transvestites in Albania. Examining evidence that the early churc h celebrated a same-sex nuptial liturgy, Boswell compares both Christian same-sex unions to Christian heterosexual unions and non-Christian same -sex unions to non-Christian heterosexual unions. Appendixes contain, am ong other things, translations and transcriptions of cited documents. Wh ether or not minds are changed on the matter will probably fall along se ctarian lines, according to current attitudes on homosexuality. A groundbreaking book for academic, publi c, and theological libraries. See all Editorial Reviews Product Details * Paperback: 464 pages * Publisher: Vintage; Reprint edition (May 30, 1995) * ISBN: 0679751645 * Product Dimensions: 80 x 52 x 09 inches * Shipping Weight: 10 pounds. See all my reviews I find it amazing that so many readers think that Boswell, may he rest in peace, has discovered that in fact the early church actually blessed sa me sex unions. THis book, combined with his "Christianity, Social Tolora nce, and Homosexuality", has done more to promote the legitimacy of homo sexuality in theological terms than any other other, with Spong's half-b aked attempts coming in a close second. Please understand that I am not trying to bash gays or gays who are livin g the CHristian life. It is only that this sort of book misrepresents th at tradition of the Church- east and west. One very useful and kind critique is found in Marva Dawn's "Sexual Character" which goes int o great detail about the scholarship of Boswell. I must say that the que stion is so very important to the Church and society and the Church shou ld not be vindictive or loose withthe facts- but neither should those wh o disagree with the Tradition. THere are several thorough reviews of Boswell's books at First THings so I won't repeat what is written there. However, I would suggest that we a ll need to be careful in reading into texts and history what would make us feel better about ourselves. Orthodox and heretic both do this, and i t is exactly why we need to listen carefully to all sides as dispassiona tely as possible. In the end, it to ok fourteen years to produce, and sadly, did not live up the expectation s that had been given it. Firstly, it did not in fact reveal (if such places exist, the not-always- so-hidden charge behind the disappointment) communities that had continu ed the practice of tolerance to same-sex couples through the last millen ium within the structures of Christendom. For part of the book he covers old ground, talking about the milieu of th e Greco-Roman world, and talks about the development of the idea of marr iage and liturgical practices for that. He then proceeds to give example s of liturgies which, Boswell claims, are proof that the church did reco gnise and bless same-sex unions. This claim is still debated, as there i s no blantant 'I now pronounce you husband and husband (or wife and wife )' kinds of statements or liturgies here, but rather testimony to friend ship, companionship, communal support, of a sort that is ambiguous. While this book is important for liturgical forms and narrative discussio n (although the narratives can be reinterpreted as something different f rom Boswell's), it failed to deliver the knock-out punch readers of the first book had been waiting for, ie, conclusive proof the church was u p to no good. So, after providing us with some historical framework, we must move on to more explicitly theological discussions. Boswell's contribution is an important one, in that it shows that this has been an issue with var ying degrees of acceptance and controversy throughout the life of the ch urch, and the history of society in general. It does not, however, settl e anything, or satisfy either side -- it is rather more grist for the mi ll for both sides. Unfortunately, Boswell died not long after the publication of this volume , and so further clarifications, or any unpublished research of sensitiv e nature, will not be forthcoming. This is ye t another example of a scholar misinterpreting historical facts in order to serve an agenda. Robert L Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity at the Univers ity of Virginia, wrote an excellent critique of Boswell's work. The arti cle is entitled "Procrustean marriage beds" and is found in Vol. Here's an excerpt: On an initial reading these rituals appear similar to marriage ceremonies . They refer to the joining of two people in life-long relationship, the y speak of a bond of peace and love and oneness of mind, they include ri tual actions that parallel those of marriage ceremonies. Yet there are c ertain features of the rituals that are unlike marriage ceremonies. For example, the texts make it clear that the relation of the participants i s spiritual not carnal ("by faith and spiritually"), there is no mention of the marriage bed, the term "marriage" is not used (as it is in marri age rites), the biblical readings are different from those used in marri age ceremonies, several of the rites, significantly, indicate that the r elationship is that of an "elder" to a "younger," and the persons joined in the ceremonies are males. It turns out that, as Wilke n states, "What these rituals solemnize is not 'gay marriages' but a for m of ritualized friendship between males that had been practiced in the Eastern Mediterranean since the time of Homer." And, of course, Wilken p roceeds to support this and gives reason for why this was done. For those Christians who promote the affirmation of homosexual practice, this book is too good to be true. See all my reviews The other reviews cover most of the issues with this book admirably. One could have appropriately, but less titilatingly, retitled the book "Unio ns in Pre-Modern Europe", since his study was fairly balanced between tw o-sex and same-sex unions. It is certainly an eye-opener for those of th e "traditional" marriage hue and cry. "Traditional" marriage as we see i t today was unknown until the late middle ages, although that sort of un ion among same-sex couples was known from the earliest. The church did n ot recognize marriage as a sacrament until about 800 years ago. Those to day who speak of traditional marriage need to read their history to know whereof they speak. I found his writing immensely readable and enjoyabl e Although I have not yet read his first work, it is certainly now on m y list. See all my reviews I have now read this book twice and both times I find myself looking at g reat scholarship. Boswell elucidate s marriage history extraordinarily well, and his citations to same-sex u nions are remarkable. There was no silver bullet that clearly and convin cingly ties the same sex ceremonies he cites to the kind of same-sex rel ationship that parallels heterosexual marriage. We must remember that th e concepts of homosexual and heterosexual did not exist in pre-modern Eu rope. Nonetheless, Bosell's scho larship is a delight to read, and raises excellent questions about our p ast. See all my reviews Boswell's book should be read by everyone interested in some kind of "fix ed union", even heterosexuals who want to be married by the Church. If you're like me, you'll wa nt to abolish or redefine "marriage" in the 21st century. Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know s o that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond dire ctly to suggestions made via this form. |
| csua.org/u/bct -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226067114/qid=1110839566/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/002-3858459-5085603?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 DVD Editorial Reviews Product Description: John Boswell's highly acclaimed study of the history of attitudes toward homosexuality in the Christian West challenges received opinion and our own preconceptions about the Church's past relationship to its gay membe rs, among whom were priests, bishops and even canonized saints. The hist orical breadth of Boswell's research (from the Greeks to Aquinas) and th e variety of sources consulted (legal, literary, theological, artistic, and scientific) make this one of the most extensive treatments of any si ngle aspect of Western social history. The product of ten years of resea rch and analysis of records in a dozen languages, this book opens up a n ew area of historical inquiry and helps elucidate the origins and operat ions of intolerance as a social force. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality won the National Book Aw ard in 1981. "What makes this work so exciting is not simply its content--fascinating though that is--but its revolutionary challenge to some of Western cultu re's most familiar moral assumptions." has mastered one of the rarest skills: the ability to write ab out sex with genuine wit. Improbable as it might seem, this work of unre lenting scholarship and high intellectual drama is also thoroughly enter taining." Product Details * Paperback: 442 pages * Publisher: University of Chicago Press (July 15, 1981) * ISBN: 0226067114 * Product Dimensions: 93 x 65 x 13 inches * Shipping Weight: 16 pounds. Boswell argues that origina lly homosexuality was tolerated and admired in the urban world of the Ro man Empire. Contrary to what one may think it was not Christianity per s e that reduced this tolerance. In fact, one cannot show that the New Tes tament was hostile to homosexuality at all. Instead there was a certain decline of tolerance as the urban civilization of Rome collapsed. Yet fo r much of what we know as the Dark Ages homosexuality was viewed as at m ost a venial sin, and legal prohibitions against it were limited and ine ffective. Indeed as urban civilization recovered by the eleventh and twe lfth centuries a flourishing gay subculture arose, celebrating homosexua l love. But over the next few centuries as powerful states seeking to en force their authority arose, new anti-sodomy laws appeared, demanding de ath for its violators. There is much in this book that is interesting and informative, and certa inly there was no other work like it at the time. We learn about the wea knesses of much of the "natural law" case against homosexuality. Homosex uality is supposedly unnatural because animals do not do it. But anti-ho mosexuals also argue that homosexuality is wrong because vile animals li ke hyenas commit it. Of course, there is considerable evidence of homose xual behaviour among animals. And many undesirable traits, such as inces t, are endemic among animals. And why should animals be the criterion of what is natural anyway? Anyway, much of the argument on what is pervert ed sex was based on considerable ignorance of the animal world, such as the false belief that hyenas were hermaphrodites or that oral sex is wro ng because weasels conceive through their mouths. The same Christians wh o denounced homosexuality also vigorously denounced "Lending at interest , sexual intercourse during the menstrual period, jewellery or dyed fabr ics, shaving, regular bathing, wearing wigs," and much else. In the eigh th century the penance given for a priest who went hunting was allotted at three years, while some homosexual acts only got a year. We are given many samples of homosexual poetry, many of them written by high ranking clergymen, the more tactful of whom were canonized. Yet this book has a number of major weaknesses that make Boswell much inf erior to such other pioneering works of social history as The Making of the English Working Class or Roll Jordan Roll. His distinction between a more tolerant "urban" and a more intolerant "rural" is hopelessly vague . Moreover, the Roman Em pire was overwhelmingly rural anyway, more than 90%, with land being the overwhelming source of wealth. To make things more confusing Boswell su ggests that the thirteenth century turn had more to do with increasing s tate authority (also present in the Roman Empire) and increasing xenopho bia as part of the crusades (also present during the Roman Empire, and f or the twelfth century as well). Boswell displays a certain tendentiousn ess throughout the book. At one point Boswell suggests that there was le ss prejudice against the "passive" position in the Roman Empire because certain emperors indulged in it. But since the emperors in question were Caligula and Nero, one suspects that they were not good examples (Boswe ll also cites Nero as an example of homosexual marriage). Much of the bo ok depends on the argument from silence, a questionable procedure when m ost Classical evidence has been lost to us. But the largest problem with the book is Boswell's discussion of scriptur e Boswell was both a homosexual and a Catholic and wanted to find a way to reconcile them. His chapter starts out well b y pointing out that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is less about the evils of homosexuality than of abusing strangers. But then Boswell h as to deal with the discussion of homosexuality in Leviticus, which pron ounces it an abomination and demands the death penalty. Boswell argues t hat since Paul denounced the law Christians need no longer be bound by i t This is clearly tendentious. Moreover, Leviticus and Deuteronom y contain moral rules against bestiality, incest and child sacrifice tha t are still in force. It is revealing that Boswell does not discuss at a ll the problem of antinomianism or the role of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in Christians thought. If one is a Christian it would be most logical t o argue that the law is still in force except where the New Testamen t explicitly challenges it, when it deals with matters that are now irrelevant (sacrifice ritual), or when it deals with specifically Je wish matters. Boswell also tries to argue that Paul is criticizing not h omosexuals but male heterosexuals who betray their nature by indulging i n homosexuality. This makes the questionable assumption that people in t he first century CE reified people by the sexual acts they committed. Wh y would Jews like Jesus and Paul, who are so unenthusiastic about marria ge, extend to their followers a whole new realm of fornication? Boswell weakly suggests that because heterosexuals produce children who were com monly abandoned and abused, while homosexuals didn't, Christians viewed homosexuality as a lesser problem. he gives no evidence of such a well developed moral concern in the book. It is n ot surprising therefore then that scholars such as Robin Lane Fox, Ramsa y Macmullen, and David Wright have been critical of Boswell's thesis. It always promises to be a good course and provide di alogue for better understanding even if it does not resolve the issue fo r all in one way or the other. Just for the record -- I am trying to sta y as objectively neutral as I can be; Boswell's book 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality' is an early scholastic contribution to the history of how homosexuality has be en treated by the Christian church establishment from the beginning of t he Christian era to about the fourteenth century. I have a friend on faculty at the IU Music School who went to high school with him. Friendships and close relationships o ften developed into sexual ones; Ther e was a variation from culture to culture, but the widespread condemnati on of homosexuality didn't begin until thirteenth and fourteenth centuri es, when tolerance (not only of this, but of religious opinions in gener al) ceased to be the rule, as the church (a dominant military, political , and social force as well) attempted to consolidate power. Boswell's research is extensive and impressive, but his interpretations h ave remained hotly debated for the 20 years since this book was first pu blished. One scholar-friend of mine who knew Boswell said that his psych ological motivation for writing the book (this is ... |