[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hamish *
**[li]the most radical claim Boswell makes – one that has been largely accepted now – is that the Medieval Church was performing homosexual unions until the Church became more conservative in the 12th century. The ceremony was called “adelphopoesis,” and paralleled the heterosexual marriage ceremony. **[/li][/QUOTE]
Is this still considered a fact? IIRC I thought this assertion of early church sanctioned homosexual marriages had been debunked.
Regarding the OP, up here in British Columbia, you can marry, with parental consent, at 16. I also know of a couple, first cousins, who were allowed to marry but waited until the woman was past childbearing. They adopted two children.
I’m sorry to say it, but I can’t really agree with religious Gay marriage ceremonies. It’s pretty clear in the Bible that it’s frowned on. I guess it’s a matter of respect. If you know God’s not gonna be too happy about it, don’t bring Him into it.
On the other hand, I have no problem with a full civil ceremony. If a couple wants to rent a hall or have it in a beautiful outdoor setting, with a Marriage Commisioner, then go for it.
I know Gay couples who can only be called married. They share homes, assets and their lives. It’s been just plain stupid that they couldn’t honor that union with a ceremony in front of all their friends and relatives. At least in this province and Ontario, that all changed this summer.
Practicly, I can just imagine how much simpler it’s going to make things like inheiretance. Imagine what used to happen in cases where one person held the property title, car registration… well, all the little odds and ends of life. If that partner was to die suddenly, without a proper will, it might have been a nightmare for the remaining partner. Now, with legal marriage, people won’t have to face the possiblity of ending up on the street without a legal leg to stand on should the deceased relatives decide to get greedy.
The deal is that [SomethingWeDontLike] will lead to an increase in [somethingBad], if we don’t want our children to do [SomethingBad], we must stop other people from doing [SomethingWeDontLike].
Momentarily exposed to [SomethingWeDontLike], our children will forget everything we have spent years teaching them and will inevitably do [SomethingBad].
Your abortive attempt at “humour” aside, I meant the two threads on gay marriage in GD that exist right now that are almost completely the same.
Oops, sorry you didn’t find it “funny” or “relevant”, I’ll ensure that you get a full “refund”.
Everything else in your post is fine, but…
You do realize there are other religions than Christianity, some of which clearly don’t mind at all whether you’re marrying a guy or a girl, yes? (The various Pagan forms immediately leap to mind)
There are several Christian sects who also disagree with your assessment of the Bible. Its not all so clear-cut as it first appears, especially if you dump Biblical inerrancy.
So there are plenty of churches and faiths quite willing to hold religious gay marriages, handfastings, or whatever floats your boat.
If you really do know the mind of God, I have this other list of questions…
While I agree with the main thrust of your post, zoogirl, regarding the idea that society should recognize and legitimate what is obviously felt to be a marital bond between gay couples, I have to disagree with one point.
There are a fair number of Christians, across a wide range of denominational affiliations, who do not see the Biblical proscriptions as condemning homosexuality per se, but rather the gay equivalent of the one-night-stand, adulterous affair, etc. In our view, what God is saying is that He doesn’t like people using other people as sex toys, rather than human beings no different than oneself – not a condemnation of same-sex attraction or the acting on it in love and mutual commitment.
The UFMCC is formally prepared to celebrate gay unions, marriages, or whatever, depending on the laws of the local state for what they’re termed. The majority in the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ support their churches’ adoption of such relationships, but are moving slowly in an effort not to alienate and exclude those members who hold the opposite point of view. In short, we’re committed to doing the right thing for our gay members, but also trying to do the right thing for our conservative members with issues regarding the question, and trying to come to a consensus that will accommodate both without hostility.
I believe that similar attitudes are prevalent among a large proportion of Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., though I can’t speak to percentages there, but press reports make clear that the concept has been at least discussed in many such churches.
A number of independent Baptist churches are, like the UFMCC, already holding such celebrations. Contrary to press coverage, “Baptist” does not equal the SBC leadership. (See posts by Sauron and Aries28 for perspective here.)
And Reform Judaism is prepared to solemnize gay marriages already.
So I personally would hold that saying “no Church wedding” is simply buying into the views of one – large but by no means unanimous – view among Christian groups. And, as Priam notes and my comment on Reform Judaism supports, Christianity does not cover all people who may want something more than a civil ceremony. We have no business telling a Wiccan group that they cannot marry a devout gay Wiccan couple by their own faith.
Once again, we’re getting at the same old thing, and here’s my same old response:
Some people think we ought to live in a society wherein the state gets to meddle in the affairs of religions. These are the people who believe that if a state permits same-sex marriage, it will mean the “erosion of the family”. Me? I’m not a theocratic fascist. I say that the state must keep its nose out of my Church. It cannot dictate what is and is not a marriage. Likewise, my Church doesn’t really give a fig as to what sort of contractual living arrangements the state permits.
If people have a “civil” wedding, they are not married in the eyes of my Church (Orthodox Church). Likewise, if a couple has a “Church wedding” within Orthodoxy, it does not matter at all whether or not they have a “marriage license” in the eyes of my Church, although obstinately refusing to get one might fall under failing to “render unto caesar what is caesar’s”, that being application for legal and contractual status needed for insurance and tax purposes.
My opinion, not that it matters, is that 2 people (not brother and sister) who present themselves to the community as married should be considered married.
I guess a government paper would help, but…thats just my 2 cents.
vanilla, who seems to be married to chocolate 
Actually, I’ve only seen two negative responses by people who had actually read the book, and those were reaching, at best. The usual counter-argument is “that couldn’t have happened, so it didn’t.”
Boswell’s evidence is pretty solid:[ul][li]The ceremony parallels heterosexual marriage.[/li][li]The ceremony generally invoked Sts. Serge and Bacchus, popularly perceived as romantic partners and portrayed in mosaics as “married” in Christ.[/li][li]The ceremony was forbidden to monks – as marriage was[/li][li]We have almost no information of any kind about the sex lives of people who engaged in the ceremony. One major exception is Emperor Basil I, who entered the ceremony twice – first with a man named Nicholas, then with one named John – and who we know had a number of male lovers throughout his life. The union with John is portrayed in a manuscript the same as any marriage.[/li][li]When the ceremony was finally forbidden, at around the same time celibacy was first seriously enforced for priests, one of the reasons given was that it was immoral. If it was just a sort of “fraternal adoption,” like Boswell’s opponants maintain, how would it have been “immoral?”[/ul][/li]This is just a quick synopsis. Boswell systematically strips away the counter-arguments – that’s it’s adoption, that it’s a business contract, that it’s a simple commeration of friendship. “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
:smack:
Once again, forgot to log matt off. The above post is mine, of course.
Isn’t the previous post an example of trolling?
I have to agree with Dogface. It’s actually two different subjects: recognition by the church vs. recognition by the state.
How is it trolling when two roommates share a computer, and occasionally forget to log the other out before posting?
All we’ve been fighting for here in Canada is “state” recognition, and various churchs have been fighting us. The draft of the new legislation specifically forbid churchs from being forced to perform such marriages – they are protected anyway by the “freedom of belief” provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The difference between church recognition and state recognition is being obscured by the conservative religious types, not by those of us who are fighting for gay marriage. FWIW, gay marriages are often performed within my faith, but these have so far had no legal recognition because someone else’s religious beliefs have been imposed upon me by law.
Meow.
I don’t think other forms of funerals should be allowed because they devalue my form of funeral.
I don’t think other forms of religion should be allowed because they devalue my form of religion.
I don’t think other forms of society should be allowed because they devalue my form of society.
I don’t think other forms of humour should be allowed because they devalue my form of humour.
I don’t think other forms of sexuality should be allowed because they devalue my form of sexuality.
I don’t think other forms of marriage should be allowed because they devalue my form of marriage.
You see, your form is depraved and virulent, where as my form is delicate, pure, and at mortal peril from your form.
I lack any other convincing argument to denounce your form and it appears on the surface to be none of my business, so I am reduced to opposing it on the grounds that it is:
The evidence and conclusions are clear. You must abandon your form and adopt *my * form. Your form must be shunned, stopped and banned.
Futile Gesture, that was beautiful. Just beautiful.
I’m just going to repeat my Mercedes Lackey quote here:
from Storm Rising, book two of the Mage Storms trilogy.
Great post, Futile Gesture.
Bob
Moderator’s Note: No. And if it were, saying so in the middle of the thread is not the proper procedure.