| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2008 04:10:56 PM · #826 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
From Yale Professor John Boswell
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. |
Surely if homosexuality was a sin, Jupiter would have struck down the offenders with a thunderbolt. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:13:21 PM · #827 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
|
Surely if homosexuality was a sin, Jupiter would have struck down the offenders with a thunderbolt. [/quote]
"Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." He was by our lights a very naughty boy.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:19:16 PM · #828 |
Boswell is not the best authority for such things. Consider wiki. I'm reposting my earlier comment:
"Since his death, Boswell's work has come under criticism from medievalists and queer theorists [ugh, how dumb - Louis], who[specify - wiki] - while acknowledging his personal courage in bringing the issue of sexuality into the academy - have pointed out the anachronism of speaking of 'gay people' in premodern societies, and have questioned the validity of Boswell's conclusions."
I couldn't agree more with the point about anachronism. Nothing outrages my historical sensibilities more than when someone calls Plato, Socrates, Alexander, or Michelangelo "gay", as though the term has meaning outside of our culture, or as though the special circumstances of the cultures those people lived in with regard to sexuality could support such a silly notion. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:19:32 PM · #829 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I am waiting with bated breath for DrAchoo to concede that his 'constancy of marriage' argument is completely false. If he can't bring himself to do it, I'm no longer going to debate him, and that's a shame, because all the other conservatives seem to have been run off. |
I'll respectfully refuse to concede. I'll quote again the New York Court of Appeals. Not because they add credibility to the argument, but because it's more eloquent than i could say.
The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:21:27 PM · #830 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Even emperors often married other males. |
Have you read the source for this? I quoted it way above and I'll tell you it doesn't paint the practice in a very pleasant light. The insinuation was Nero was quite mad and his male "wife" was even madder. I'll dig the quote up again...
Edit: here you go:
From the Suetonius , Life of Nero:
"Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still p133current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. 2 This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images,84 fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.
29 He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched85 by his freedman Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered. I have heard from some men that it was his unshaken conviction that no man was chaste or pure in any part of his body, but that most of them concealed their vices and cleverly drew a veil over them; and that therefore he pardoned all other faults in those who confessed to him their lewdness. "
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 16:22:31. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:23:09 PM · #831 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:24:37 PM · #832 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Have you read the source for this? I quoted it way above and I'll tell you it doesn't paint the practice in a very pleasant light. |
Consider the beloved emperor Hadrian and his partner Antinous. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:27:27 PM · #833 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Boswell is not the best authority for such things. Consider wiki. I'm reposting my earlier comment:
"Since his death, Boswell's work has come under criticism from medievalists and queer theorists [ugh, how dumb - Louis], who[specify - wiki] - while acknowledging his personal courage in bringing the issue of sexuality into the academy - have pointed out the anachronism of speaking of 'gay people' in premodern societies, and have questioned the validity of Boswell's conclusions."
. |
I quite agree that he slanted his case to prove his beliefs, but his underlying point, that the history of the acceptance of homosexuality as natural was altered by the monastic orders that kept the histories during the dark ages, is pretty well accepted. Our notion of the history of sexual normalcy is still altered by what the monks cut out of western history. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:27:47 PM · #834 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:31:41 PM · #835 |
| There's historical precedent for much that is considered irrelevant in modern North American culture. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:32:27 PM · #836 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Have you read the source for this? I quoted it way above and I'll tell you it doesn't paint the practice in a very pleasant light. |
Consider the beloved emperor Hadrian and his partner Antinous. |
You'll have to provide a source that talks about their marriage. Wiki only talks about them being "beloved". I'm certainly not denying homosexuality existed.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 16:35:01. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:33:09 PM · #837 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
Unfortunately for your argument, the English language isn't dead. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:33:51 PM · #838 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
There's historical precedent for much that is considered irrelevant in modern North American culture. |
And yet, for example, the New York Court of Appeals seemed to think it important. There may be people that consider it irrelevant, but to deny there are people who don't consider it as such is to just refuse to acknowlege the opposition. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:34:23 PM · #839 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
Unfortunately for your argument, the English language isn't dead. |
Come again? I honestly don't get what you are saying here.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 16:34:38. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:36:30 PM · #840 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
Unfortunately for your argument, the English language isn't dead. |
Come again? |
Your assumption that the strict definition of a word is fixed because of historical precedent is wrong. The English language and most other languages in use today are alive and changing. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:38:09 PM · #841 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
The definition of marriage or its historicity is irrelevant if, under the Constitution or the Charter, people's rights are violated. There is historical precedent for the definition of the word "slave-holder", but its relevance is non-existent. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:40:14 PM · #842 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your assumption that the strict definition of a word is fixed because of historical precedent is wrong. The English language and most other languages in use today are alive and changing. |
Ah, I gotcha. Well that's a whole 'nuther argument isn't it? But just because a language can change doesn't mean it should or does change. Time will, of course, tell. It would be interesting to see if the common definition of marriage includes gay marriage down the line, will religions then appropriate another word to succeed the term "marriage" to indicate their own feeling about it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:40:26 PM · #843 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Have you read the source for this? I quoted it way above and I'll tell you it doesn't paint the practice in a very pleasant light. |
Consider the beloved emperor Hadrian and his partner Antinous. |
You'll have to provide a source that talks about their marriage. Wiki only talks about them being "beloved". I'm certainly not denying homosexuality existed. |
I wasn't arguing that they were married, I was countering your presentation of the moral outrage of the populace at Nero's behaviour with the good will they had for Hadrian, who had a male lover. The "marriage" part was not as important as Nero's other lapses. Consider also that Seutonius may not have been the most impartial of historians.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 16:42:06. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:41:40 PM · #844 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I quite agree that he slanted his case to prove his beliefs, but his underlying point, that the history of the acceptance of homosexuality as natural was altered by the monastic orders that kept the histories during the dark ages, is pretty well accepted. Our notion of the history of sexual normalcy is still altered by what the monks cut out of western history. |
I would have to enthusiastically agree. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:43:39 PM · #845 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
The definition of marriage or its historicity is irrelevant if, under the Constitution or the Charter, people's rights are violated. There is historical precedent for the definition of the word "slave-holder", but its relevance is non-existent. |
But recall I'm not against gay-rights. I'm simply against gay "marriage". You can't decide whether or not that is a violation until you define the word, eh? If marriage is defined as "man and woman" than "gay marriage" is simply an improper use of english. If "marriage" is defined as between "two consenting adults" then certainly the idea of discrimination could be raised if people then tried to prevent gays from "marrying".
Another silly analogy. Someone goes to the Olympics and says, "I want to participate in the 110-meter hurdles, but I want to do it without the hurdles." If the Olympic officials try to steer them into running the 100-meter dash, are they being somehow discriminatory?
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 16:46:19. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:45:30 PM · #846 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You'll have to provide a source that talks about their marriage. Wiki only talks about them being "beloved". I'm certainly not denying homosexuality existed. |
I wasn't arguing that they were married, I was countering your presentation of the moral outrage of the populace at Nero's behaviour with the good will they had for Hadrian, who had a male lover. The "marriage" part was not as important as Nero's other lapses. Consider also that Seutonius may not have been the most impartial of historians. [/quote]
Well, the quote by someone above was that "many emperors married men". I pointed out that the only known instance of the word "marriage" was between Nero and these other guys. 1) That doesn't mean "many" and 2) the portrayal was quite disparaging. If one is contending that "many emperors married men", I'm gonna have to see more because that's a pretty poor example to base an argument on. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:46:06 PM · #847 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll say to the people above who deny that the term "marriage" has 99.9999% of the time across all cultures meant a union between genders are simply in denial. |
It is possible to concede this point and declare it to be irrelevant. |
If I'm claiming historical precedent for the definition of a word, how is it irrelevant? |
The definition of marriage or its historicity is irrelevant if, under the Constitution or the Charter, people's rights are violated. There is historical precedent for the definition of the word "slave-holder", but its relevance is non-existent. |
But recall I'm not against gay-rights. I'm simply against gay "marriage". You can't decide whether or not that is a violation until you define the word, eh? If marriage is defined as "man and woman" than "gay marriage" is simply an improper use of english. If "marriage" is defined as betwee "two consenting adults" then certainly the idea of discrimination could be raised if people then tried to prevent gays from "marrying".
Another silly analogy. Someone goes to the Olympics and says, "I want to participate in the 110-meter hurdles, but I want to do it without the hurdles." If the Olympic officials try to steer them into running the 100-meter dash, are they being someone discriminatory? |
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:46:51 PM · #848 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
Tell me about it. But it takes two to quarrel. ;) |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:48:03 PM · #849 |
| Incidentally, Hadrian couldn't have "married" Antinous, since he was already married. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:48:50 PM · #850 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Have you read the source for this? I quoted it way above and I'll tell you it doesn't paint the practice in a very pleasant light. The insinuation was Nero was quite mad and his male "wife" was even madder. I'll dig the quote up again...
|
I would certainly agree that Nero, and for that matter most of the emperors of post Augustine Rome were total nutters, but the sharp line that we draw today between gay and straight was somewhat more blurry in ancient times.
Granted it is often sad to see the attempted "outing" of such figures of Abraham Lincon because of a few lines in a letter which use flowery phrases which look odd to our eyes, but were nothing more that polite terms in the past, but the notion that homosexuality is some recent event due to our godless society is demonstrably false. Our society's current more tolerant view of homosexuality as being within the mainstream is not a radical departure from western culture, but a veering back toward a more centrist attitude.
|
|
