| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2008 02:51:35 PM · #751 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition. |
So you are saying, in effect, is that your (their) idea of sacred is more important than my idea of sacred.
And people wonder why gays feel... devalued.
That's my point!
Doesn't devaluing other people's idea of sacred devalue the very IDEA of 'sacredness' itself? If sacredness is debatable... how can it even BE sacred? Sacredness is NOT debatable! It is venerated! Inviolate!
How many ways do I have to put it?
How does allowing the sacred in any form to operate solely at the behest of the laws of man strengthen sacredness in ANY way?
Step back... By saying that my marriage is not sacred regardless of my own personal convictions, conservatives attack the very idea of sacredness itself. And they are blind to the contradiction!
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 14:59:27. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:55:27 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If marriage is truly sacred, then it's too important not to share. |
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition.
|
Traditionally, people were punished for their misdeeds on the pillory. Today, people are still punished, however, the punishments have adapted to the times
Some traditions need to change or go the way of the pillory. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 03:40:41 PM · #753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A westerner may be very well meaning in wanting to spread the message of Islam. He goes around handing out pamphlets with a picture of Mohammed talking about the values of the religion. |
I think this analogy is a losing path to go down. In this case, your well meaning westerner is an idiot, or at best just not paying any attention to this thing that he wants to share the message of. There's no actual conflict - the image isn't required in any way, shape or form, to share the message. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:02:17 PM · #754 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A westerner may be very well meaning in wanting to spread the message of Islam. He goes around handing out pamphlets with a picture of Mohammed talking about the values of the religion. |
I think this analogy is a losing path to go down. In this case, your well meaning westerner is an idiot, or at best just not paying any attention to this thing that he wants to share the message of. There's no actual conflict - the image isn't required in any way, shape or form, to share the message. |
Well, in a way you reinforce the idea. I thought about your point when I was writing the analogy. But one could argue such stuff like, well, westerners are more used to visual media and thus would respond better to it. Blah blah blah. Perhaps the point is the guy IS an idiot for ignoring the principle of Islam against idolatry, but wouldn't the Christian also be an idiot for simply ignoring the principle against homosexuality or the sanctity of marriage? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:03:08 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition. |
So you are saying, in effect, is that your (their) idea of sacred is more important than my idea of sacred.
And people wonder why gays feel... devalued.
That's my point! |
(scratches head) But isn't this just as easily reversed? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:07:23 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition. |
So you are saying, in effect, is that your (their) idea of sacred is more important than my idea of sacred.
And people wonder why gays feel... devalued.
That's my point! |
(scratches head) But isn't this just as easily reversed? |
Err, nobody is intent on banning heterosexual marriage, are they? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:07:57 PM · #757 |
Okay, I'm still 3 pages behind on my reading but I just wanted to throw in a couple interesting articles... just because... :)
ancient gay marriage
vows |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:16:01 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... wouldn't the Christian also be an idiot for simply ignoring the principle against homosexuality or the sanctity of marriage? |
When it comes to their own behavior, sure.
When it comes to what others do, it's called tolerance.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:35:15 PM · #759 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've basically tried to make my argument on cultural grounds, but you haven't engaged me. |
If I haven't engaged you, it's my bad. Can you either restate your cultural argument or point me to the appropriate threads? |
Well, let's see, your primary (impersonal) argument seems to be that it's okay to ban gay marriage because the culture deems it unacceptable. Have I got that right before I proceed? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 04:57:27 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition. |
So you are saying, in effect, is that your (their) idea of sacred is more important than my idea of sacred.
And people wonder why gays feel... devalued.
That's my point! |
(scratches head) But isn't this just as easily reversed? |
No, since I am saying my idea of sanctity is EQUAL to theirs. They are saying that theirs is GREATER than mine. The equation does not balance out.
Likewise, in practical terms they are not the same. They want to prevent me from sharing in their sanctity by actually invalidating my relationship. If my side should win... they get to keep doing what they have always done, in a practical, day to day sense. If they win, I do not.
That is why this is a RIGHTS issue, and not a MORAL issue.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:14:08 PM · #761 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've basically tried to make my argument on cultural grounds, but you haven't engaged me. |
If I haven't engaged you, it's my bad. Can you either restate your cultural argument or point me to the appropriate threads? |
Well, let's see, your primary (impersonal) argument seems to be that it's okay to ban gay marriage because the culture deems it unacceptable. Have I got that right before I proceed? |
(feels like he's on the stand)...uh...I may have said that. ;) To be clear, I've advocated that culture can define "marriage" as it wishes. However if it defines it as between "man and woman" I've advocated a parallel track for homosexual unions. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:19:15 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I'm still 3 pages behind on my reading but I just wanted to throw in a couple interesting articles... just because... :)
ancient gay marriage
vows |
This is fairly interesting. Two thoughts:
1) Without discounting it, one does note the website is lezbeout.com. At least one has to worry about bias.
2) I have not claimed that there are zero instances of gay marriage in the past. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the sources this guy lists, but it is also somewhat revealing to me that it has taken the guy 12 years of research to find examples. That doesn't strike me as something really common.
I didn't check out the second link yet. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:34:22 PM · #763 |
There's an interesting side note to the prop 8 setback. The Mormons argued strongly for prop 8 while also saying that they are not anti-gay and that they supported the protections for homosexuals that were already a part of California law. Now gay leaders in Utah are trying to use what the LDS church said during the prop 8 campaign to argue for gay rights in Utah (that do not currently exist as they do in CA).
Here's a NY Times article about it. Of course, churches never have to stand by what they claimed to be true the day before and no one in the church will care about hypocrisy if the church doesn't support gay rights in Utah, so I imagine these efforts might be largely in vain. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:36:11 PM · #764 |
By the way, I saw  Bear_Music posting in here. Shouldn't someone in his condition be banned from the rant section?!? :P j/k, Those were some good points made earlier. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:38:27 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I'm still 3 pages behind on my reading but I just wanted to throw in a couple interesting articles... just because... :)
ancient gay marriage
vows |
This is fairly interesting. Two thoughts:
1) Without discounting it, one does note the website is lezbeout.com. At least one has to worry about bias.
2) I have not claimed that there are zero instances of gay marriage in the past. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the sources this guy lists, but it is also somewhat revealing to me that it has taken the guy 12 years of research to find examples. That doesn't strike me as something really common.
I didn't check out the second link yet. |
Well, this comment, "OK, 'humous. I'm going to hold you to it. Name three cultures that had homosexual marriage more than, say, fifty years ago. (I'm half wondering if you were sneaky with your wording and included the word "marriage" in all phrases above except the homosexual one on purpose)" made me curious so I had a quick look.
I agree with the first, so went on to the next, but don't have time right now to go farther. I plan to, though, because it's something new to me and rather interesting, even if it doesn't prove particularly relevant :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:44:02 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Without discounting it, one does note the website is lezbeout.com. At least one has to worry about bias.
2) I have not claimed that there are zero instances of gay marriage in the past. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the sources this guy lists, but it is also somewhat revealing to me that it has taken the guy 12 years of research to find examples. That doesn't strike me as something really common.
I didn't check out the second link yet. |
Worry about bias? Your concern about bias is answered in your very own second point. From the article:
'Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.'
"Lezbeout" didn't do the research, they reported on it.
About twelve years: you can't make conclusions about why his research took so long. He didn't start on day 1, find nothing for twelve years, then finally had a eureka moment on day 4,380. One can reasonably presume his research had a reason and therefore a reasonable genesis, and that his "finds" were ongoing. Further, you don't know why such instances may have have been difficult to find (perhaps they were not, but his methodology is merely meticulous). Maybe this material is buried purposefully, and difficult to uncover.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 17:47:01. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:49:38 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Without discounting it, one does note the website is lezbeout.com. At least one has to worry about bias.
2) I have not claimed that there are zero instances of gay marriage in the past. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the sources this guy lists, but it is also somewhat revealing to me that it has taken the guy 12 years of research to find examples. That doesn't strike me as something really common.
I didn't check out the second link yet. |
Worry about bias? Your concern about bias is answered in your very own second point. From the article:
'Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.'
"Lezbeout" didn't do the research, they reported on it.
About twelve years: you can't make conclusions about why his research took so long. He didn't start on day 1, find nothing for twelve years, then finally had a eureka moment on day 4,380. One can reasonably presume his research had a reason and therefore a reasonable genesis, and that his "finds" were ongoing. Further, you don't know why such instances may have have been difficult to find (perhaps they were not, but his methodology is merely meticulous). Maybe this material is buried purposefully, and difficult to uncover. |
Valid points. that's why I want to know more. And while lezbeout didn't do the research, they could have cherry picked from his findings. That's certainly been done before on lots of fronts. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:51:42 PM · #768 |
One reason you won't see much gay 'marriage' throughout history (as conservatives define it) is because it was only recently that people (at least most people here in the US) chose to stop suppressing, institutionalizing, and killing us outright. Outside the US, not so much. Gays get killed for being gay regularly. Within the US, we have at least reduced that threat to 'occasionally'.
A marriage can only exist when the right to exist exists, and it's not MY fault that conservatives throughout history had previously chosen a different tack than those of today.
I'd like to propose that we take the word 'marriage' off the table when speaking of the validity of gay relationships historically. The reason we didn't have them is that we, as is the case today, were actively denied them, despite many examples of us living and acting as if we were married in everything but name.
Interestingly, there are three historical relationships described in the Bible itself that were, on the face of it, either homosexual or at least dripping with same-sex intimacy.
See:
Ruth & Naomi
David & Jonathan
Daniel & Ashpenaz
Leave out a debate of whether these people actually boinked each other or not, and what's left is the Bible using the same language to describe these relationships in the same terms as it does opposite-sex relationships.
Cleave. In twain. "They kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself". "May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me". "Loved him as his own soul".
That sure sounds like a sacred bond to me. I would call it marriage.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 17:57:26. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 06:07:22 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Okay, I'm still 3 pages behind on my reading but I just wanted to throw in a couple interesting articles... just because... :)
ancient gay marriage
vows |
This is fairly interesting. Two thoughts:
1) Without discounting it, one does note the website is lezbeout.com. At least one has to worry about bias.
2) I have not claimed that there are zero instances of gay marriage in the past. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the sources this guy lists, but it is also somewhat revealing to me that it has taken the guy 12 years of research to find examples. That doesn't strike me as something really common.
I didn't check out the second link yet. |
Well, this comment, "OK, 'humous. I'm going to hold you to it. Name three cultures that had homosexual marriage more than, say, fifty years ago. (I'm half wondering if you were sneaky with your wording and included the word "marriage" in all phrases above except the homosexual one on purpose)" made me curious so I had a quick look.
I agree with the first, so went on to the next, but don't have time right now to go farther. I plan to, though, because it's something new to me and rather interesting, even if it doesn't prove particularly relevant :) |
This may be relevant:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 06:36:45 PM · #770 |
NJ Civil Unions: Separate But Not So Equal
"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. Among the cases that have come to Garden State Equality, said Goldstein is one involving a woman who told her employer she and her partner had a civil union and was told by the company, 'We're not going to provide benefits. We still need the word 'marriage' and you two aren't married.' Goldstein said the couple have been together 16 years and have adopted three special needs children. 'New Jersey should be celebrating such couples,' said Goldstein. 'Instead, civil-unioned couples across New Jersey are still being denied equal protection of the law.' Goldstein said it is time the Legislature amended the law to provide for marriage."
Added Goldstein, "For those who ask, 'So long as same-sex couples get the rights, who cares what it's called?' the New Jersey experience has answered the question once and for all."
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 06:50:38 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while lezbeout didn't do the research, they could have cherry picked from his findings. |
You seem to be predisposed to believing that. Why, I wonder? Especially when you consider that the findings they reported on are facts, not conclusions about those facts.
But of course, if you want to consider the source, wiki is a good start, which says:
"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.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 18:51:08. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:11:09 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while lezbeout didn't do the research, they could have cherry picked from his findings. |
You seem to be predisposed to believing that. Why, I wonder? Especially when you consider that the findings they reported on are facts, not conclusions about those facts. |
Louis. Don't hate me because I question all sources. Believe me, I do it in medicine all the time. Anyway, "facts" are not always "facts". For example, people can differ on what is meant by greek words, etc. Interestingly though, assuming that these unions did exist, the wiki I linked above, seems to indicate the Christians had a different word for these unions (adelphopoiesis) other than marriage. Now where have I heard that before?
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 19:11:33. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:15:01 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while lezbeout didn't do the research, they could have cherry picked from his findings. |
You seem to be predisposed to believing that. Why, I wonder? Especially when you consider that the findings they reported on are facts, not conclusions about those facts. |
Louis. Don't hate me because I question all sources. Believe me, I do it in medicine all the time. Anyway, "facts" are not always "facts". For example, people can differ on what is meant by greek words, etc. Interestingly though, assuming that these unions did exist, the wiki I linked above, seems to indicate the Christians had a different word for these unions (adelphopoiesis) other than marriage. Now where have I heard that before? |
This would be quoting from the book published in some editions as 'The marriage of likeness' ? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:18:52 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while lezbeout didn't do the research, they could have cherry picked from his findings. |
You seem to be predisposed to believing that. Why, I wonder? Especially when you consider that the findings they reported on are facts, not conclusions about those facts. |
Louis. Don't hate me because I question all sources. Believe me, I do it in medicine all the time. Anyway, "facts" are not always "facts". For example, people can differ on what is meant by greek words, etc. Interestingly though, assuming that these unions did exist, the wiki I linked above, seems to indicate the Christians had a different word for these unions (adelphopoiesis) other than marriage. Now where have I heard that before? |
This would be quoting from the book published in some editions as 'The marriage of likeness' ? |
Not that I know of. I'd never even heard of all this before, but I started googling St. Baccus and St. Serge since they were the ones mentioned on the lezbeout.com site. That's when I stumbled on the word adelphopoiesis and the wiki for it. I'll quote below:
Thesis
The purpose of the adelphopoiesis ceremonies is controversial. Boswell maintained that they were celebrating romantic, indeed sexual unions between two men. It is worth noting that Boswell himself denies that adelphopoiesis should be properly translated as "homosexual marriage." He decries such a translation as "tendentiously slanted".[1]
At the same time, Boswell claims that "brother-making" or "making of brothers" is an "anachronistically literal" translation and proposes "same-sex union" as the preferable rendering. Boswell's preference, however, is not unproblematic. "Sex," for instance, while pointing to a seemingly "objective" characteristic of the participants involved in the rite, in fact draws attention to the physical condition or biological sex of the "brothers" -- whereas the rites for adelphopoiesis explicitly deny that the union itself is a "carnal" one. [2]
Boswell commented on the lack of any equivalent in the Roman Catholic church; however, the British historian Alan Bray in his book The Friend, gives a Latin text and translation of a similar Roman Catholic rite from Slovenia, entitled Ordo ad fratres faciendum, literally "Order for the making of brothers".
Criticism
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". [3] Boswell's scholarship has been assailed as being of dubious quality.[4]
Alternative views[5] 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.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:13:14 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
This would be quoting from the book published in some editions as 'The marriage of likeness' ? |
Not that I know of. |
You could just read the link you posted. It's in the first paragraph. Second sentence.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 22:13:36. |
|
