christian gay marriage in the year 100 AD

[Sasha]

Gay marriage in the year 100 AD (http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108)

Gay marriage sounds like an ultra-contemporary idea. But almost twenty years ago, a Catholic scholar at Yale shocked the world by publishing a book packed with evidence that same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian Church during an era commonly called the Dark Ages.
Illustration of Serge and Bacchus, in a same-sex union
John Boswell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell) was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages. (He found almost no records of lesbian unions, which is probably an artifact of a culture which kept more records about the lives of men generally.)
Bolstered by this evidence, Boswell published a book in 1994, the year before his death from AIDS, called Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type%7Clink[postId%7C951140108[asin%7C0679751645[authorId%7C5717795175536518860). The book comes out next month for the first time in a digital edition (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Vintage-ebook/dp/B00DXKJ5HS/?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type%7Clink[postId%7C951140108[asin%7CB00DXKJ5HS[authorId%7C5717795175536518860). It was an instant lightening rod for controversy, drawing criticism from both the Catholic Church and sex pundit Camille Paglia (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp). Given the Church's present-day views on gay marriage, these detractors argued, Boswell's history seemed like wishful thinking.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Wx-M8ZmSL._SL75_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645%3FSubscriptionId%3D11V4BFFP7Y247FYTQ882 %26tag%3Dkinjamod-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165 953%26creativeASIN%3D0679751645&ascsubtag=[postId%7C951140108[asin%7C0679751645[authorId%7C5717795175536518860[type%7Cmodlink)
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645%3FSubscriptionId%3D11V4BFFP7Y247FYTQ882 %26tag%3Dkinjamod-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165 953%26creativeASIN%3D0679751645&ascsubtag=[postId%7C951140108[asin%7C0679751645[authorId%7C5717795175536518860[type%7Cmodlink)

Amazon.com: $15.92 (http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645%3FSubscriptionId%3D11V4BFFP7Y247FYTQ882 %26tag%3Dkinjamod-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165 953%26creativeASIN%3D0679751645&ascsubtag=[postId%7C951140108[asin%7C0679751645[authorId%7C5717795175536518860[type%7Cmodlink)



But it wasn't. Boswell had actually begun his research back in the 1970s, and published an equally controversial work in 1980 called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. His Same-Sex Unions book refined and expanded a lot of what he'd learned over a lifetime of research into primary sources in scattered libraries and archives.
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vdqzorbq2m9jpg/ku-medium.jpg
Pictured: Boswell in 1980
How could these marriages have been forgotten by history? One easy answer is that — as Boswell argues — the Church reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century to be for the purposes of procreation. And this slammed the door on gay marriage. Church scholars and officials worked hard to suppress the history of these marriages in order to justify their new definition.
Of course, history is more complicated than that. Boswell claims that part of the problem is that we define marriage so differently today that it's almost impossible for historians to recognize 1800-year-old gay marriage documents when they see them. Often, these documents refer to uniting "brothers," which at the time would have been a way of describing same-sex partners whose lifestyles were tolerated in Rome. Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vdra1ob6qgdjpg/original.jpg
Legal scholar Richard Ante wrote a law journal article (http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=twlj) explaining that Boswell's book could even be used as evidence for the legality of gay marriage, since it shows evidence that definitions of marriage have changed over time. He describes some of Boswell's evidence of these same-sex rites in the early first millennium:

The burial rite given for Achilles and Patroclus, both men, was the burial rite for a man and his wife. The relationships of Hadrian and Antinous, of Polyeuct and Nearchos, of Perpetua and Felicitas, and of Saints Serge and Bacchus, all bore resemblance to heterosexual marriages of their times. The iconography of Serge and Bacchus was even used in same-sex nuptial ceremonies by the early Christian Church.
The main piece of evidence that these same-sex unions were marriages is that they so closely resembled heterosexual ceremonies. Literary scholar Bruce Holsinger describes Boswell's detailed stories (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-holsinger.asp) of same-sex ceremonies:

[Boswell] cleverly posits the development of heterosexual and same-sex nuptial offices as a single phenomenon, tracking the growth of the latter from "merely a set of prayers " in the earlier Middle Ages to its flowering as a "full office" by the twelfth century that involved "the burning of candles, the placing of the two parties' hands on the Gospel, the joining of their right hands, the binding of their hands . . . with the priest's stole, an introductory litany crowning, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, a kiss, and sometimes circling around the altar." Boswell devotes a full chapter to comparing these rituals with their heterosexual counterparts, revealing a number of extraordinary similarities between the two; in several appendixes totaling almost 100 pages, he has compiled numerous examples of the documents themselves (including heterosexual matrimony ceremonies and adoption rituals for comparison) to let "readers . . . judge for themselves," as he puts it. (Boswell translates most of the ceremonies, so general readers won't have to worry about brushing up on their Old Church Slavonic.)
Were these same-sex unions in the middle ages the same thing as today's gay marriages? Probably not. People at the time may not have viewed two men forming a union as anything out of the ordinary. Marriage itself meant something different thousands of years ago, and social taboos against homosexuality had not yet solidified. Still, in Boswell's work, we find records of institutions where same-sex couples were honored with the same ceremonies that opposite-sex couples enjoyed. Two men could live as "brothers," sharing wealth, home, and family. And yes, they could love each other, too.
Though Boswell died before his country began to allow similar kinds of unions, he could draw hope from knowing something that most people did not. Even the most fundamental kinds of human relationships change over time. Those who have been banished today may be blessed tomorrow — just as they were over a thousand years ago.


source: http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+io9%2Ffull+%28io9%29

[Sotionov]

This stuff is just ridiculous. It's like "Pork-loving society of ultra-orthodox jews" or "Islamic polytheists". I don't see the need to get support from places where there is none. It's like the people who insist that Socrates and Plato supported homosexuality, or that Sparta was a homosexual society. Even though you give them historical sources that prove that Spartans punished homosexuality with exile, they're like "no, no, no, Sparta had institutionalized pederasty" for fuck's sake, why do you care?! If you're gay, be gay, why would you need approval of fucking Sparta, or Christianity, or anything similar..

[sixdollarchampagne]

The first paragraph of this rather breathless story says, "Same sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian church ...," but the final paragraph asks if "these same sex unions" were the same thing as gay marriages today, and the answer given is "Probably not." That's what's called bait and switch, and it means the entire exercise is simply irrelevant to anything happening today. And the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches would vigorously deny that they ever performed gay weddings in antiquity. So the story quoted is just a lot of a-historical, self-serving crap.

Flipping through the book cited on gay unions in early Europe, I got the distinct impression that Boswell, whose field was history, not languages, did not himself know the Greek language, and the key piece of evidence that book cites is a document in Greek, so the exercise is pointless.

[Sasha]

The first paragraph of this rather breathless story says, "Same sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian church ...," but the final paragraph asks if "these same sex unions" are the same thing as gay marriages today, and the answer given is "Probably not." That's what's called bait and switch, and it means the entire exercise is simply irrelevant to anything happening today. And the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches would vigorously deny that they ever performed gay weddings in antiquity. So the story quoted is just a lot of a-historical, self-serving crap.


since "christians" again and again keep claiming that gay marriage fundamentally changes the unchangeable fundamental concept of marriage i beg to differ.
he proves that through the ages the concept and form of marriage changed repeatedly, that at one time christians performed and accepted same-sex "marriage" and that there is therefor no reason for christians to evolve further/back again.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The first paragraph of this rather breathless story says, "Same sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian church ...," but the final paragraph asks if "these same sex unions" were the same thing as gay marriages today, and the answer given is "Probably not." That's what's called bait and switch, and it means the entire exercise is simply irrelevant to anything happening today. And the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches would vigorously deny that they ever performed gay weddings in antiquity. So the story quoted is just a lot of a-historical, self-serving crap.

Well first, the reason the article suggest that the marriages are probably not like the ones today is because people at that time didn't have the same concept of "a homosexual" or "a heterosexual". So not only does provide a historical counter to the "tradditional marraige that has existed since the dawn of time" bullshit, but it also historically counters claims of homosexuality being singled out by biblical text as a taboo.

I'm not sure if you are saying it's self-serving arguments in the sense of a Catholic trying to make the offical church not seem like a collection of bigoted assholes, but if you are I took the opposite from it. If they can't hide behind "eternal traddition" or "theological dictate by God", then christian homophobia can only really be seen as the bigoted assholeness of modern relgious leaders.

[Sotionov]

he proves that through the ages the concept and form of marriage changed repeatedly, that at one time christians performed and accepted same-sex "marriage"
He proves nothing of the sorts.

Christianity has consistenly troughout it's history preached that people who within marriage practice coitus interruptus will burn in hell for all eternity, and that they will experience progresively more painful eternal punishments for oral and anal sex. And that's just within monogamous church marriage. It's ludicrous to suggest that christianity could have tolerated homosexuality, in fact- exile, castration or capital punishment was how it mostly dealt with it. It's dowright to bizzare, something like if the Jews would start being desperate for Nazi approval and would to revise history to tell stories how early Nazis actually loved the Jews, liked to wear yarmulkas and have menorahs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

He proves nothing of the sorts.

Christianity has consistenly troughout it's history preached that people who within marriage practice coitus interruptus will burn in hell for all eternity, and that they will experience progresively more painful eternal punishments for oral and anal sex. And that's just within monogamous church marriage. It's ludicrous to suggest that christianity could have tolerated homosexuality, in fact- exile, castration or capital punishment was how it mostly dealt with it. It's dowright to bizzare, something like if the Jews would start being desperate for Nazi approval and would to revise history to tell stories how early Nazis actually loved the Jews, liked to wear yarmulkas and have menorahs.

1) I don't think the reason this was posted was to get the favor of contemporary bigots.

I think a better analogy would be if the NAZIs were in power and arguing about the inherent superiority of some classic "pure" German culture and then evidence came out that this culture had originated out of mixed communities of jews and gentiles where religious/ethnic identity didn't matter much. Better yet, if evidence came out back in the time of US Slavery - a time when the bible was being used to justify slavery and white superiority - that Jesus or at least some of his posse were black.

2) I'm by far not an expert on this history and even less on theology, but my understanding is that early christianity tolerated homosexuality at lest to the extent that no such seperate category existed before the Victorian age. Christianity even in the middle ages thought of sexuality (and prohibitions) in terms of "acts/deeds" not biological identities as modern bigots (well and people generally today) do. This is not to say "christian churches are on our side" but to say, their contemporary justifications are pure bullshit even on their own religious terms.

[khad]

He proves nothing of the sorts.

Christianity has consistenly troughout it's history preached that people who within marriage practice coitus interruptus will burn in hell for all eternity, and that they will experience progresively more painful eternal punishments for oral and anal sex. And that's just within monogamous church marriage. It's ludicrous to suggest that christianity could have tolerated homosexuality, in fact- exile, castration or capital punishment was how it mostly dealt with it. It's dowright to bizzare, something like if the Jews would start being desperate for Nazi approval and would to revise history to tell stories how early Nazis actually loved the Jews, liked to wear yarmulkas and have menorahs.
Well, yeah, you could. Historical cherrypicking will let you make just about any argument imaginable. Did you know that there was even a Jewish field marshal in the Wehrmacht?

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitgoldberg.jpg
This photo of "half-Jew" Werner Goldberg, who was blond and blue-eyed, was used by a Nazi propaganda newspaper for its title page. Its caption: "The Ideal German Soldier."

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitascher.jpg
"Half-Jew" Commander Paul Ascher, Admiral Lütjens's first staff officer on the battleship Bismarck; Ascher received Hitler's Deutschblütigkeitserklärung. (Military awards: EKI, EKII, and War Service Cross Second Class.)



http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitholleander.jpg
"Half-Jew" Colonel Walter H. Hollaender, decorated with the Ritterkreuz and German-Cross in Gold; he received Hitler's Deutschblütigkeitserklärung. (Military awards: Ritterkreuz, German-Cross in Gold, EKI, EKII, and Close Combat Badge.)



http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitwilberg.jpg



"Half-Jew" and later Luftwaffe General Helmut Wilberg; Hitler declared him Aryan in 1935. (Military awards: Hohenzollern's Knight's Cross with Swords, EKI, EKII.)

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitmilch.jpg

"Half-Jew" and field-marshal Erhard Milch (left) with General Wolfram von Richthofen. Hitler declared Milch Aryan. He was awarded the Ritterkreuz for his performance during the campaign in Norway in 1940.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I think Sotionov is right: It is unbelievable that the church in antiquity approved of same-sex marriages. Though I do not have a copy of Boswell's book at hand, I remember, from flipping through it, that it has a single source, one document, which appears to be without precedents or subsequent elaboration in any other document. Any history major (like I used to be) knows that it is a perilous move to base an entire theory on a single document, particularly one that stands in opposition to all other historical data about the question being discussed.

I also seem to remember, looking at Boswell's source document in Greek, which can be found in Boswell's book, that the document never uses the word gamos, "marriage," which is another fact that makes the claim in the story, self-serving crap.

I was not writing to vindicate early Christian criticism of homosexual activity, but to express my disagreement with the facile claim in the original post that Christianity in antiquity celebrated same-sex unions. which is simply not true. IIRC, the "unions" in Boswell's source document were "spiritual brotherhoods," which, given the value that Christianity placed/places on celibacy, could not have included sexual activity.

Finally, I am glad that Khad used the phrase, "historical cherry picking," which is an exact description of the method used in the story posted.

[Sasha]

But which book did you flip through. As far as I can tell the last book he published had multiple sources, not drawn from Greek records but slavonic ones...
Sounds like you are the one cherry picking by argueing against a work you have not read.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Celibacy in Christianity came much later though.

I think there is a tendency for people to romanticize the egalitarianism of the early church, but I don't find it historically impossible that Christians at that time had views of relationships that were more similar to the rest of society at that point (in other words, no special designation of people who have same sex relationships, and open homosexual relationships that were sanctioned by and large) than views similar to modern conceptions and condemnations of homosexuality. Even in Rome, I've read that disparaging references to homosexuality were directed at specific acts or men being prositutes or gender-bending... While same sex relationships (among men only) were otherwise accepted. So it seems like it had more to do with marking clear gender differences, but not sexual relationships.

I'm not a historian and it's all from second hand sources, but I find it totally plausible. And more plausible than the idea that early Christians oppressed people that were not oppressed generally otherwise. Again, from what I understand, Christianity even into the Middle Ages was concerned only with sexual acts, not someone's sexuality and was primarily concerned with controlling female sexuality, not same sex relationships (of men anyway). Dividing people into categories by sexual preference emerged as part of bourgeoise science in conjunction with attempts to enforce new concepts about gender.

[Ace High]

This Boswell guy is one attractive dude, lol.

But this is interesting indeed, very surprising to me. Actually kind of mind blowing. But it just kind of makes me dislike Christianity even more, because they literally regressed instead of progressed. It is very strange to go from being ok with something like that to hating it. Although, Western Europe before the dark ages also was ok with homosexuality. What the hell happened??:confused:

[Jimmie Higgins]

This Boswell guy is one attractive dude, lol.
Yeah, for a minute i thought he was the blond vampire from true blood.

[Ace High]

Yeah, for a minute i thought he was the blond vampire from true blood.

Never watched it, but I did get the whole attractive vampire vibe, lol.

[Sotionov]

Celibacy in Christianity came much later though.

I think there is a tendency for people to romanticize the egalitarianism of the early church, but I don't find it historically impossible that Christians at that time had views of relationships that were more similar to the rest of society at that point (in other words, no special designation of people who have same sex relationships, and open homosexual relationships that were sanctioned by and large) than views similar to modern conceptions and condemnations of homosexuality.
Christian teaching concerning sexuality is consistant in the Gospels, Epistles, apostolic fathers, and early church fathers, from which conservative Christianity today get's it's view.

It cannot be overlooked that Christianity grew out of Judaism, that proscribes death penalty for homosexuality, and that the beginning of Epistle to Romans is pretty straightforward in calling homosexuality shameful, unnatural and vile.

[Decolonize The Left]

I was not writing to vindicate early Christian criticism of homosexual activity, but to express my disagreement with the facile claim in the original post that Christianity in antiquity celebrated same-sex unions. which is simply not true. IIRC, the "unions" in Boswell's source document were "spiritual brotherhoods," which, given the value that Christianity placed/places on celibacy, could not have included sexual activity.

Lol.

Hey, did you know that priests are also sworn to celibacy and there is absolutely no way they could sexually abuse children because of "the value that Christianity placed/places on celibacy?"

[Sasha]

Christian teaching concerning sexuality is consistant in the Gospels, Epistles, apostolic fathers, and early church fathers, from which conservative Christianity today get's it's view.

It cannot be overlooked that Christianity grew out of Judaism, that proscribes death penalty for homosexuality, and that the beginning of Epistle to Romans is pretty straightforward in calling homosexuality shameful, unnatural and vile.

Except its not;

Like many similar commandments, the stated punishment for wilful violation is the death penalty. In practice, the death penalty has not been practised in Judaism for over 2,000 years.[vague] Rabbinic Judaism does not believe that the preceding verses refer to what is nowadays described as a homosexual inclination, nor do these verses refer to lesbian sexual activity. Instead, these verses specifically refer to an act of anal sex between two males.
However, even in Biblical times, it was very difficult to get a conviction that would lead to this prescribed punishment. The Jewish Oral Law states that capital punishment would only be applicable if two men were caught in the act of anal sex, if there were two witnesses to the act, if the two witnesses warned the men involved that they committed a capital offense, and the two men - or the willing party, in case of rape - subsequently acknowledged the warning but continued to engage in the prohibited act anyway. As such, it is not surprising that there is no account of capital punishment, in regards to this law, in Jewish history.
In any case, rabbinic tradition understand the Torah's system of capital punishment to not be in effect in the absence of a Sanhedrin and Temple. However, the severity of the punishment indicates the seriousness with which the act is seen by God.

Homosexuality = analsex
Where did i hear that again before? Oh yeah, out of the mouth of every homophobe ever. Stop projecting, not every religious person ever is a bigot.

The fact that the midrash (as one of the only religious text ever) explicitly mentions same sex marriages proves that this was not an non-existent thing, that the midrash condemns might prove that the rabbi's who wrote opposed it, it also proved it was common enough to actually legislate it...

[Sotionov]

Lol.

Hey, did you know that priests are also sworn to celibacy and there is absolutely no way they could sexually abuse children because of "the value that Christianity placed/places on celibacy?"
I hope you do realize that priests that practice any sort of sexuality, by definition do so in spite of their vow to celibacy. Likewise, if any christian were to approve of homosexuality, he would be doing so in spite of christianity, being that it, in it's core, disapproves of homosexuality. To say that christinity approves of homosexuality would be like saying that catholicism officially approves sexuality of priests.


Rabbinic Judaism does not believe
Which is irrelevant to christianity.


not every religious person ever is a bigot.Neither did I say it is, but the founding documents of religions are, and every religious authority within traditional religions was. If a religious person isn't, it is in spite of him belonging to a traditional religion. I applaud their dissent, I just think they should be consistent, and leave such a religion altogether.

[Decolonize The Left]

I hope you do realize that priests that practice any sort of sexuality, by definition do so in spite of their vow to celibacy. Likewise, if any christian were to approve of homosexuality, he would be doing so in spite of christianity, being that it, in it's core, disapproves of homosexuality. To say that christinity approves of homosexuality would be like saying that catholicism officially approves sexuality of priests.

All that only according to your narrow views of a religion.

EDIT: Also, logically, if you make a vow to celibacy and then have sex, you have not had sex "in spite of" your vow, you have broken your vow. Just so you know.

[Sasha]

Oh by the way, not only the midrash but also the babylonial talmud mentions same sex marriage, when where both probably written? funny enough arround 100 ad, what a coincedence...

But you have consequently refused to engage the actual argument people brought forth in this thread, you know, like you still failed to mention what book written by the OP you "leaved through" where you based all your earlier rage on. You should consider getting a job at FOX news, they love people with a "dont confuse me with the facts when my mind is made up" atitude...

[Sotionov]

All that only according to your narrow views of a religion.

EDIT: Also, logically, if you make a vow to celibacy and then have sex, you have not had sex "in spite of" your vow, you have broken your vow. Just so you know.
According to my correct views of religion.

Breaking your vow is synonymous with doing something in spite of your vow. Just so you know.

[hatzel]

Christianity has consistenly troughout it's history preached...

Hey buddy don't you think it's at all strange that some dude went and wrote a whole 464 pages of book against the assumption that Christianity (taken as a strange and ahistorical entity for some reason) has had consistent teachings and actions through the ages with 'no no but Christianity (taken as a strange and ahistorical entity for some reason) has had consistent teachings and actions through the ages'? I mean, at least SDC half-tried to engage with the book itself (as much as that is possible without actually being able to engage with the book directly) and argue that there was some kind of misunderstanding, that the evidence put forward is inadequate. You, on the other hand, seem to buy into the Catholic lie that the Church actually represents the teachings of Jesus and historical Christianity and all that, rather than something which...you know...developed with the times, as has been adequately proven a thousand times over...(big clue: the OP says the Church 'reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century.' Hold up, wasn't that when feudalism and all that jazz was entrenching itself? Heaven forbid - excuse the pun - the Church adapt to its historical context, or that somebody on a left-wing forum might open the door for a remotely Marxist analysis!)


Christian teaching concerning sexuality is consistant in the Gospels, Epistles, apostolic fathers, and early church fathers, from which conservative Christianity today get's it's view.

Once again: conservative Christianity today claims to get its view from the teachings that are consistent in the Gospels, Epistles, apostolic fathers, and early church fathers, but the reality is quite different.


It cannot be overlooked that Christianity grew out of Judaism, that proscribes death penalty for homosexuality, and that the beginning of Epistle to Romans is pretty straightforward in calling homosexuality shameful, unnatural and vile.
None of these texts engage with 'homosexuality' at all because the very concept of homosexuality didn't exist (but don't let the changing popular understanding of sexuality trick you into thinking that the Church's understanding of sexuality could ever have changed to match it...), what you're talking about is same-sex intercourse. Perhaps. I mean, within the Jewish tradition it's widely accepted that the actual Biblical prohibition only covers (adult) male-male penetrative anal sex, other forms of male-male sexual contact and the gamut of female-female sexual contact not falling under the explicit prohibition, albeit also being forbidden for other reasons (not like that stopped the Medieval Iberian Jews writing all that homoerotic 'gazelle'-poetry, mind you, much like their Islamic neighbours). But wait, that only covers males and females...what about the third sex (including a variety of sub-categories, actually), the sarisim, a mainstay of Talmudic discourse but seemingly overlooked in the religious discussions of modern Europe, which has thrown all its weight behind a sex-/gender-binary which didn't conceptually exist 2000 years ago, despite their ravenous talk of Adam and Eve? Could it possibly be that 'conservative Christianity' - in asserting a sex-/gender-binary - has actually abandoned the Biblical position? It's possible. Kind of off-topic but apparently (somebody who knows better can corrrect me if I'm wrong) there is even a passage in the Qur'an where the soldiers ask Muhammad whether they are allowed to designate certain men to 'treat as eunuchs,' often understood to refer to something sexual. Muhammad says they can't, though says this is 'because they are not true eunuchs,' not because a guy putting himself in another guy is a bad thing (or maybe it is, but these eunuchs wouldn't be considering male for that purpose).

The point I'm getting at here is that stuff tends to be a little more complex than you're letting on...

[Sasha]

Which is irrelevant to christianity.


Wut?!?

I was replying to this;

it cannot be overlooked that Christianity grew out of Judaism, that proscribes death penalty for homosexuality

If you just want to argue against yourself im more than willing to but out bro...

[Sotionov]

Oh by the way, not only the midrash but also the babylonial talmud mentions same sex marriage, when where both probably written?
Are you saying that a book that is an interpretation of a book that proscribes death penalty for (consumated) homosexuality approves of homosexuality?


big clue: the OP says the Church 'reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century.
Oh, well, if the OP says so, then I guess it must be true.


Once again: conservative Christianity today claims to get its view from the teachings that are consistent in the Gospels, Epistles, apostolic fathers, and early church fathers, but the reality is quite different.
Being familiar with the new testament and the early christian writings, I can say that no, reality isn't quite different.


Wut?!?

I was replying to this;
You said Rabbinic Judaism. Which is irrelevant to Christianity, as I said. As much as Thomism is irrlevant to Mormonism.

[Sasha]

Also, there is a good argument made that the levitcus chapters actually are a law against same-sex sexual abuse, not same sex voluntairly sexual relationships and that later translations where tweaked to fit current ideas, its not only history that is written by the victorious, religious text as well, there is a reason why the vatican zealosly chased and horded antique religious texts until this day. You know lest we find out that central religous dogma's like purgatory where intentionally made up to make money in a kind of protection racket during the middle ages, or even more embaressing that things like the virgin birth, a pilar of christian dogma, is a frigging translation error, which it is, really.

[Sasha]

You said Rabbinic Judaism. Which is irrelevant to Christianity, as I said. As much as Thomism is irrlevant to Mormonism.

So its unheard of, imposible that christians interpreted arround 100ad the talmud differently than today but that jews did it arround the same time is "duh!".... :rolleyes:

[Sotionov]

the levitcus chapters actually are a law against same-sex sexual abuse, not same sex voluntairly sexual relationshipsWhich would be a totally artibrary interpretation of a text, which absolutely any connection to the text itself. There is simply no reason to think that the text says that, and not what it obviously says. I repeat, I don't get the need to make up such absurdities and get imaginary approval from a barbaric ideology.


So its unheard of, imposible that christians interpreted arround 100ad the talmud differently than today but that jews did it arround the same time is "duh!"....
Christians didn't interpret the talmud at all, it is a book that is from another religion, not christianity.

[Sasha]

Sory my bad, wrote talmud where i meant old testament.
Anyways, if you have an hour to spare please watch this young man, you might learn something new: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-vines/bible-homosexuality_b_1378368.html

[Zostrianos]

The relationship of David and Jonathan is quit relevant here as it appears to denote a homosexual union, in which case homosexuality might have been permitted in certain contexts:

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18)

Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ 17Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. (1 Samuel 20)
.....

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? (1 Samuel 20:30)

As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap* and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.* 42Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41)

[Sotionov]

Sorry, I'm just can't force myself to watch someone explain pointless revisionism. If he wanted to be religious, he could have turned to Neopaganism or some similar alternative religion, not desparatly seek approval from a barbaric ideology hailing from the bronze-age.

[Sasha]

Because he surely must be the first person to argue that if Paul made levitcus rules about getting killed for working on Shabbat or killing people who eat pork "non-laws" that that counted for all of Leviticus, inc the one zomg butt sex! bit.
Sure never happend, not in 2000 years.
Dude, hate religion all you want but don't become a dogmatic zealot about it...

[Sotionov]

If you're not a dogmatic zealot about it, then there's no reason to hate religion. You could just be cafeteria religious by cherry picking the stuff that isn't regressive and delude yourself you're consistent with your religion.

[Sasha]

I was making a " joke" dude, you know, why be a frigging atheist if you still refuse to think critically, get holled up in dogma's, predjuidice etc. Your brand of atheists are just the flipside of fundamentalist religous folks, its sad and pathetic.
Want to end religion? Smashing your face into a wall while screaming " you are all stupid" isnt going to convine no one.

[Igor]

Neopaganism or some similar alternative religion, not desparatly seek approval from a barbaric ideology hailing from the bronze-age.

i think it's a bit funny that while you're opposed to "barbaric bronze age ideologies" your only alternative example is neopaganism out of all things

[Decolonize The Left]

According to my correct views of religion.

And there we have it. Until you can recognize that your view (on anything) can never be "correct" then you will continue to look like a complete self-centered person with their head up their ass.


Breaking your vow is synonymous with doing something in spite of your vow. Just so you know.

Actually, that's false. A vow is "a promise or an oath." Hence it is either in action or it is not; there is no in between ("in spite of" suggests that the vow is still in play). You have either fulfilled your promise or broken it. You don't get to fulfill your promise some of the time and not other times but still have it in play.

In short, you cannot act contrary to a vow and still have that vow exist; i.e. as you are suggesting, to act "in spite of" a vow.