When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

[walksalone11]

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."

Read the rest of the article @ http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

[MEBecker53]

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."

Read the rest of the article @ http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Wow, thank you.  What we need the most is just some education.  When people are given information and allowed to make choices for themselves we are all free.

[sigmapi1501]

Yea, but if we allow them gays to get married it will lead to you marrying a dog or other animal, right?  That's the ONLY logical conclusion. Certainly not that we as humans have the ability to decide what is appropriate on a case by case basis. 

[walksalone11]

Regardless of what we have the ability to decide we only have the right to decide in the case of ourselves.

[JediJohnnie]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

[falcon9]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

There is nothing what-so-ever intelligent about believing the fiction of the bible. And there another classic "gem" of  religion.  Religion has no place in a decent society. It is the main reason for wars and the *bleep* backwards things that people do "in the name of god". I for one say down with all religion. Enough is enough.   

[walksalone11]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

So don't marry a guy Jonnie, and I wont either, but someone else wants to so phucking what? Mind your own business.

[falcon9]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

So don't marry a guy Jonnie, and I wont either, but someone else wants to so phucking what? Mind your own business.

If he were able to do that, would he be evangelizing religious mind-blindness on an online forum?

[walksalone11]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

So don't marry a guy Jonnie, and I wont either, but someone else wants to so phucking what? Mind your own business.

If he were able to do that, would he be evangelizing religious mind-blindness on an online forum?

....which illuminates the implied included content of my reply to him.

[sigmapi1501]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

There are less than two paragraphs in the Bible pertaining to homosexuality.  The xtian outrage is disproportionate. It is as bad to get a tattoo or waste male "seed" on anything other than procreation.  Where are the protests at Wal-mart because they sell blended fabric clothing???

[falcon9]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

So don't marry a guy Jonnie, and I wont either, but someone else wants to so phucking what? Mind your own business.

If he were able to do that, would he be evangelizing religious mind-blindness on an online forum?

....which illuminates the implied included content of my reply to him.

It does however, your subtlety there may have eluded him, (given the default evangelizing position he holds).

[walksalone11]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

So don't marry a guy Jonnie, and I wont either, but someone else wants to so phucking what? Mind your own business.

If he were able to do that, would he be evangelizing religious mind-blindness on an online forum?

....which illuminates the implied included content of my reply to him.

It does however, your subtlety there may have eluded him, (given the default evangelizing position he holds).

Perhaps if I type louder........

[falcon9]

Perhaps if I type louder........

That probably wouldn't help, even if this wasn't a text-based medium, (or if someone else read it out loud), due to a self-inflicted mind-blindness.  It was a thoughtful consideration though.

[ptfunds]

Great information and thanks for sharing. It always amazes me how many opinions there are on this subject.  Why do people care? Why is is so important to stand behind religion to prove a point if you are against Same-Sex marriage. If you believe in a Higher Power then why not just let the Higher Power take care of the situation when the time is appropriate if it is in fact a "sin". It certainly isn't the job of any human being to punish another as if they were God is it?  The bible also says Thou Shalt Not Judge.  What happened to that part when it comes to making God-like judgements about other peoples choices.  Give it up and live your own lives. Let other people and God worry about theirs.

[Falconer02]

This really doesn't prove much,considering that we have churches in the present day that our condoning gay marriage.The Bible is very clear that homosexuallity is a sin,regardless of what any maverick church does.

I found this a while back, but unfortunately I lost the source in the document. Referring to homosexuality and sexual conduct in the bible-

This same code also prohibits a couple from having sex during the wife's menstrual period(Lev.18:19, 20:18), with the penalty that the offenders will be "cut off from among their people." The Hebrew word translated as "cut off" is karath, which also means to destroy. Thus, a couple having sexual relations during the wife's menstrual period would be put to death if the act was discovered. Most of us would consider our decision as to whether to have sex with our wives during menstruationto be our own business. In fact, the prohibition against sex during menstruation has to do with another Levitical code, that of ritual impurity. Leviticus 15:19-30 goes into great detail about how a woman is unclean during her period, how anything she touches becomes unclean, how anyone who touches her or any thing she has touched is unclean for a day and must bathe to be cleansed, and how at the end of her period she is to offer two pigeons or doves to be sacrificed, one as a sin offering, so that the priest can "make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge"(Lev.15:30). Most of us today do not see menstruation as a sin or consider this quite natural funtion either unclean or a "sickness"(see Lev.20:18).

I wonder if those state legislators who quoted Leviticus while fighting against the passage of California's law legalizing all private, voluntary sexual behavior between consenting adults(1972) kept their wives locked in menstrual huts during their periods, or if any fundamentalist congregations still ask a sacrifice of pigeons for the "sin" of menstruation. The Levitical sexual prohibitions were based on a psychology far different from our own.