Here's a NEW strategy Cory Bernardi, Longweekend, Matty, Andrei, - and all the OTHER "Christians Against Equality" could add to their arsenal





Utah man is on hunger strike to end gay marriages in his state

Trestin Meacham has already lost 25 pounds after embarking on a fast with 'no end in sight.' The man, a devout Mormon, is pledging not to eat anything until Utah stops issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, January 3, 2014


http://votesmart.org/canphoto/137407_lg.jpg




A Utah man is refusing to eat until his state restores a ban on same-sex marriages.

Trestin Meacham, 35, has been surviving on water and the occasional vitamin pill since Dec. 21. Although he's already lost 25 pounds, Meacham claims he won't eat until all of Utah's counties stop issuing gay marriage licenses.

"You can start a blog and you can complain on social networks until you're blue in the face and nothing will happen but actions speak louder than words and I'm taking action," Meacham told 4Utah.

One day before Meacham began his fast with "no end in sight," federal judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

Officials in the conservative state have filed an emergency appeal against Shelby's decision, CNN reports, asking Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor to block the ruling.

In the meantime, dozens of gay and lesbian couples in the state have started tying the knot.

Meacham, as a Mormon, believes that such marriages are evidence of sin.

"I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home," the man wrote on Facebook. "Some things in life are worth sacrificing one's [health]and even life if necessary."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-man-vows-fast-utah-bans-gay-marriage-article-1.1565872

Until such time as those things not currently specified as marriage are included as marriage, there is no 'Anti Marriage Equality Lobby' here in Australia.

I prefer that we take care of our own backyard first and not be swayed by every little thing that happens overseas.  I mean - fer god's sake - look at the rampant idiocy created by taking on board feminist ideas from a near-Communist half year dark country of seven million people FCS - who make Volvos!!!!!

WGAF?

'Feminists' and the ilk may like to think they are 'internationalists' and 'action persons' while sitting back over a latte` and talking the issue to death - but I prefer real action for real people - not just endless rhetoric and propaganda to persuade us that we need to give yet another handout to a whining group.

Again - my personal view on 'gay marriage' is one of absolute indifference one way or the other - and I am happy to leave it with the courts and the legislators on this occasion since it is a meaningless issue to me.

Well, he's certainly got his priorities straight.

I can't believe they allowed it in Utah of all places.

Bet the constituency is overjoyed at that.

Did you see the show were John Saffron went to Salt Lake City, Utah, and tried to sell the Origin of the Species door to door?

Sooooooo smacking funny….. ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:04pm:

Well, he's certainly got his priorities straight.

He told an interviewer he is emulating Gandhi, and said he is willing to sacrifice his life for the cause.

Gandhi was, after all, a well-known campaigner against human dignity, and an implacable foe of equal rights. I think. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Meacham says this is about religious freedom, not about hate, and he trots out the well-worn line that ”some of my best friends and relatives are gay.” Nevertheless, after receiving angry protests from LGBT people, he concluded:


“The homosexual movement is less tolerant than the Nazis and if [gays] had the power of the Nazis, I have no doubt they would not hesitate to march people of faith into ovens.”


( ... I've never been able to establish just who the "Homosexual Movement" is - and how one signs up ? - buzz)



I hope that his gay friends and relatives will get over Meacham’s self-inflicted death-by-starvation without too much mental anguish.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/05/mormon-comparing-himself-to-gandhi-vows-to-continue-hunger-strike-until-utah-stops-allowing-gay-marriage/

I think Gandhi was FOR human dignity not against it.

As for gays marching people into ovens, that is, as an ex and unlamented Aussie PM would say "hyperbowl".

Gays march people into ovens?  When did that start?

Noe lemme alone - I'm reading up on the Indian organ swiping trade and the Indian grabbing Nepalese girls for prostitution trade....

Man - some of these guys need to be raped and burned in the streets..... not the women.... the slave traders etc...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

Gays march people into ovens?  When did that start?

OH, it hasn't started - YET !



"The Homosexual Movement" haven't QUITE grasped the level of power held by the NAZIS - to date

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Until such time as those things not currently specified as marriage are included as marriage, there is no 'Anti Marriage Equality Lobby' here in Australia. I prefer that we take care of our own backyard first and not be swayed by every little thing that happens overseas.  I mean - fer god's sake - look at the rampant idiocy created by taking on board feminist ideas from a near-Communist half year dark country of seven million people FCS - who make Volvos!!!!! WGAF? 'Feminists' and the ilk may like to think they are 'internationalists' and 'action persons' while sitting back over a latte` and talking the issue to death - but I prefer real action for real people - not just endless rhetoric and propaganda to persuade us that we need to give yet another handout to a whining group.

At a cricket match we expect to find cricket players, and spectators who are cricket fans, because it makes sense that those two groups should be there. At a political forum, like this one, it too makes sense that that there should two groups, one side vs the other in a debate over politics. There are the players and the watchers from the left and the right here. But we don't expect there to be many activists, no more than we'd expect there to be basketball players and their fans at the cricket match. Why should it be like this? Simple, the 'determinists' would argue that to be here, you need to be comfortable, and if so, you have no reason to be active.

So how about it, Grappler, are you just huff, too? I'm calling your bluff, is what I'm saying. How about some 'action' from you. I've put it to you twice before to help make some actual changes, so is this going to be strike three?


Quote:

Again - my personal view on 'gay marriage' is one of absolute indifference one way or the other - and I am happy to leave it with the courts and the legislators on this occasion since it is a meaningless issue to me.

You mean my current burgeoning plans to start the Grappler Party to rectify the ills of Australia, my promise to march on Canberra etc with a bill of demands to be rectified (at my age and condition).. a sort of Munich Beerhall Putsch moment to draw attention to the realities of a dying country.. all means nothing?

Ask not what your country can do for you - it will just kick you in the arse and laugh at such a preposterous notion that it should do for you as you have for it. 

Tell YOURSELF what you can do for your country!

What are YOU doing?

And what has this to do with whether or not there is a gay marriage anti-lobby - something that cannot exist since there is no legitimate gay marriage.

I plan neither to campaign for gay marriage or against it - it is a matter of indifference to me.

What, good sir, is the import of your imputation that I am doing nothing?  I do plenty just by being here and elsewhere, and damned well on only $135 a week.

Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'?
Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby?

Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle).


Or what?

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'? Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby? Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle). Or what?

Well there are only 2 configurations of human coupling that are legal under our current (Western society) laws. Heterosexual and Homosexual. What 'other' configurations could there be?

As for homosexuals being sensitive about homosexual issues....People are generally most concerned about things that affect them personally. It's only natural to worry most about what impacts on you yourself.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'? Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby? Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle). Or what? Well there are only 2 configurations of human coupling that are legal under our current (Western society) laws. Heterosexual and Homosexual. What 'other' configurations could there be? As for homosexuals being sensitive about homosexual issues....People are generally most concerned about things that affect them personally. It's only natural to worry most about what impacts on you yourself.

Which might explain why so many here are so worried about homosexual marriage

SOB

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'?

Let me think. Yes, you are excluded from it.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:

You mean my current burgeoning plans to start the Grappler Party to rectify the ills of Australia, my promise to march on Canberra etc with a bill of demands to be rectified (at my age and condition).. a sort of Munich Beerhall Putsch moment to draw attention to the realities of a dying country.. all means nothing?

A political party is exactly that, it's not a 'person', it's a group of people with a common political agenda. And, the internet allows us to avoid the situation where a party is formed around the ego of one dominant individual, which is something that couldn't have been done 20 years ago.

The democratic election process obliges us to form our own parties if we aren't satisfied with the existing ones. In other words we don't really have the right to challenge a government publicly, that is if we are a political movement. Besides, it's too easy to say that a government is wrong. Most elected governments do their best, they fail because we voted them in, more than for any other reason. Politicians do what they are good at, (in the limited time that's between election campaigns) and that's being politicians.


Quote:

Ask not what your country can do for you - it will just kick you in the arse and laugh at such a preposterous notion that it should do for you as you have for it.

 

It's the 'nation' of Aussieland that will do that, not Australia. And that happens because Aussies are a lay down and take it in the guts culture. It's behavior consistent with a people that have their origins in a penal colony. We are not 'I want some more' types, in fact the opposite. We have a spite against those that complain. 


Quote:

Tell YOURSELF what you can do for your country!

We are by default obliged to be patriots.


Quote:

What are YOU doing?

My purpose here is to help put together a patriotic movement. Something I'd discussed with FD around the time of my first post. 


Quote:

And what has this to do with whether or not there is a gay marriage anti-lobby - something that cannot exist since there is no legitimate gay marriage.

It was legal in the ACT for a few weeks. Besides why wait, it would be too late when it is legislated. Something that is guaranteed to happen as the majority parties, being subject to chromosomal pressure, are pushed to the left. 

And it did have nothing to do with gay marriage, but everything to do with hypocrisy. You denounce those who want to sip coffee and gripe rather than take action. And also those that wouldn't stand up and fight beside Ned Kelly. But it looks like you are very 'comfortable' here yourself.

The irony, Trestin Meacham is prepared to starve himself to death to defend conventional marriage, but the Crappler doesn't want to get up from his comfortable position and try and make a difference.


Quote:

I plan neither to campaign for gay marriage or against it - it is a matter of indifference to me.

Then you've got a poor understanding of that particular issue. And a political 'party', as the term suggests, is not about "me". 


Quote:

What, good sir, is the import of your imputation that I am doing nothing?  I do plenty just by being here and elsewhere, and damned well on only $135 a week.

Griping is doing nothing. It's a comfortable way of wasting time. And 'money' is an excuse. I'm not asking anyone to put in money. It's effort that is needed, only an hour a day on the internet would do. 

It's strike three for you?

I love how everyone claims they don't care, yet always fall on the "just let them do it and move on" side of the fence.

Enough with the soft-sell idiocy. 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 11:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'? Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby? Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle). Or what? Well there are only 2 configurations of human coupling that are legal under our current (Western society) laws. Heterosexual and Homosexual. What 'other' configurations could there be? As for homosexuals being sensitive about homosexual issues....People are generally most concerned about things that affect them personally. It's only natural to worry most about what impacts on you yourself.

Marriage is a heterosexual institution.
If that natural and obvious boundary is not recognised, what other aspects of it can also be discarded?

What about 3 blokes? 2 blokes and 3 women? (is there anything special about 1+1?)
What about uncle and niece? if they really really love and cherish each other?
What if a brother and sister want to be married but promise not to have sex? Is that possible?

My question is - what limit will homosexuals set to others, once they are 'married'?

Once you take your finger out of the dam - and that's NOT a play on words - you've lost the game.
Once homosexuality was decriminalised the rest was inevitable.
Once the drinking age, the voting age, the driving age were lowered the rest was inevitable.
I'd like to go on but I have to try and get my finger back in.

... wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

I love how everyone claims they don't care, yet always fall on the "just let them do it and move on" side of the fence. Enough with the soft-sell idiocy.

Exactly. Maybe it's combination of discussion and action that is needed? A new political movement.  Pauline Hanson at least proved that there is room for a grass roots political party.

GA wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Griping is doing nothing. It's a comfortable way of wasting time. And 'money' is an excuse. I'm not asking anyone to put in money. It's effort that is needed, only an hour a day on the internet would do.  It's strike three for you?

Nah - I happen to do a lot of enlightening here - and elsewhere - and am forming alliances as we speak.... that's pretty good work without cash if you ask me. I'm also struggling to get something going for myself here - I can't carry the whole world every time, can I?

I will not engage in fisticuffs with the governing system - not on the physical level.  I am seeking answers through the process of democracy.

You are quite correct in saying that Australia is a land of lay down and take the kick, and kick at anyone who seeks to raise himself out of the mire.  Getting 'above himself' so to speak.

Well - I'm not descended from the peasantry and will not be reduced to it.  Instead, as a true Ard Reagh, I will lead my people to FREEEDDOOOOM!

Beer at the club.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

My question is - what limit will homosexuals set to others, once they are 'married'?

I'm sure we'll see arranged marriages between animals, furniture and siblings.

It's a natural progression.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 11:52pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'? Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby? Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle). Or what? Well there are only 2 configurations of human coupling that are legal under our current (Western society) laws. Heterosexual and Homosexual. What 'other' configurations could there be? As for homosexuals being sensitive about homosexual issues....People are generally most concerned about things that affect them personally. It's only natural to worry most about what impacts on you yourself. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. If that natural and obvious boundary is not recognised, what other aspects of it can also be discarded? What about 3 blokes? 2 blokes and 3 women? (is there anything special about 1+1?) What about uncle and niece? if they really really love and cherish each other? What if a brother and sister want to be married but promise not to have sex? Is that possible? My question is - what limit will homosexuals set to others, once they are 'married'?

No, it's not. It's a human institution, but it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years.

And all of the other versions you mention have existed at some point in history.....except possibly for the 'promise never to have sex' one..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

No, it's not. It's a human institution, but it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years.

C'mon man, that's stupid.

I mean, people can exaggerate a bit to make their argument but what is the point of knowingly posting outright lies like this? 

... wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:46pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:36pm: No, it's not. It's a human institution, but it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years. C'mon man, that's stupid. I mean, people can exaggerate a bit to make their argument but what is the point of knowingly posting outright lies like this?

What is an 'outright lie'??

Marriage is defined as ' the union of a man and a woman' - as before - no amount of wordplay can make a man a woman or a woman a man.

I have nothing against gays - apart from their perpetual whining about how they are so oppressed when in reality they are nothing of the sort.

I see no gays being refused work etc - they have the vote and so forth. 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:18am: Marriage is a heterosexual institution. No, it's not. It's a human institution, but it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years. And all of the other versions you mention have existed at some point in history.....except possibly for the 'promise never to have sex' one..

Would you mind telling us where you got this load of bollocks from?
Surely not something you have just made up, in a fit of pique, surely!!!

How long before some lesbians will demand to be regarded as 'fathers'?
And Elton John types as 'mothers'?

Why should fatherhood be restricted to men, motherhood to women? Homophobic!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 11:52pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Is anyone EXCLUDED from this 'marriage equality' drive'? Any configurations of human coupling that are rejected by the 'marriage equality' lobby? Or is this a case of homosexuals are sensitive only about homosexuals, not actual 'marriage equality'? (Making this yet another dishonest Newspeak swindle). Or what? Well there are only 2 configurations of human coupling that are legal under our current (Western society) laws. Heterosexual and Homosexual. What 'other' configurations could there be? As for homosexuals being sensitive about homosexual issues....People are generally most concerned about things that affect them personally. It's only natural to worry most about what impacts on you yourself. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. If that natural and obvious boundary is not recognised, what other aspects of it can also be discarded? What about 3 blokes? 2 blokes and 3 women? (is there anything special about 1+1?) What about uncle and niece? if they really really love and cherish each other? What if a brother and sister want to be married but promise not to have sex? Is that possible? My question is - what limit will homosexuals set to others, once they are 'married'? No, it's not. It's a human institution ...

Correct.

Nero had at least two husbands .

The idea that it's always been a "heterosexual institution" is naive to the extreme.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

Nero had at least two husbands . The idea that it's always been a "heterosexual institution" is naive to the extreme.

So a mad fvckn emperor, executed for being a mad fvcker, is your argument to counter millennia of normal heterosexual custom?

Are you out of your mind?*iii

*(yes, you are.)

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:13pm: Nero had at least two husbands . The idea that it's always been a "heterosexual institution" is naive to the extreme. So a mad fvckn emperor, executed for being a mad fvcker, is your argument to counter millennia of normal heterosexual custom?

It's simply one example that proves beyond all doubt that you are wrong.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:13pm: Nero had at least two husbands . The idea that it's always been a "heterosexual institution" is naive to the extreme. So a mad fvckn emperor, executed for being a mad fvcker, is your argument to counter millennia of normal heterosexual custom? It's simply one example that proves beyond all doubt that you are wrong.

So when was 'mad fvckn emperors (an anyone else) can henceforth marry two blokes' institutionalised for all times to come, bozo?

It's not enough to be arrogant, pr!ck, you need to have a case as well.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:21pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:13pm: Nero had at least two husbands . The idea that it's always been a "heterosexual institution" is naive to the extreme. So a mad fvckn emperor, executed for being a mad fvcker, is your argument to counter millennia of normal heterosexual custom? It's simply one example that proves beyond all doubt that you are wrong. So when was 'mad fvckn emperors (an anyone else) can henceforth marry two blokes' institutionalised for all times to come, bozo?

Who said it was?

(anyone else notice that when Soren loses an argument, his posts get less intelligible?)

Anyone else also notice that whenever Soren loses an argument, he goes offline?

Funny that.

You're a pussy, Soren.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:06pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:36pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:18am: Marriage is a heterosexual institution. No, it's not. It's a human institution, but it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years. And all of the other versions you mention have existed at some point in history.....except possibly for the 'promise never to have sex' one.. Would you mind telling us where you got this load of bollocks from? Surely not something you have just made up, in a fit of pique, surely!!!

From history...
Before the start of the Christian Church, most cultures had same-sex marriages as well a heterosexual marriages. Marriage was more about uniting wealth and property than it was about having offspring, and was pretty much limited to the wealthier classes.
Even after the beginnings of Christianity, the Church didn't much care about weddings, they were purely a civil ceremony, that conformed to the local laws.
Marriage ceremonies couldn't even take place IN a church until the 12th century, and the requirement for witnesses and an officiating priest didn't come in until 1563.

Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 11:35pm:

Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries.

I have never heard about that, the gay lobby should have been all over that like white on rice.  So what are you talking about and some sort of reference and expansion would be nice. 

Datalife wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 11:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:35pm: Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries. I have never heard about that, the gay lobby should have been all over that like white on rice.  So what are you talking about and some sort of reference and expansion would be nice.

Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. It was most likely a carry over from the old Roman Empire laws, or possibly even something to do inheritance laws (for the Order for Uniting Two Men). However, it's not really something the Church would want advertised in recent times.
Same as they don't like to let people know that Jesus' mother wasn't declared a 'Perpetual Virgin' until 649 AD, and they tend to gloss over the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters..

"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)."

Quote:

Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary[16] in New Haven, Connecticut, on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

lol.


Looks like this sinner was just trying to outsmart the man at the pearly gates.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:19am:

Datalife wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:35pm: Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries. I have never heard about that, the gay lobby should have been all over that like white on rice.  So what are you talking about and some sort of reference and expansion would be nice.  Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. It was most likely a carry over from the old Roman Empire laws, or possibly even something to do inheritance laws (for the Order for Uniting Two Men). However, it's not really something the Church would want advertised in recent times.

Don't be soo stupid. This was not 'same-sex marriage', it was a ceremony of brother-making.

Boswell tried to twist it into proto-homo-marriage but of course couldn't because it had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Datalife wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:35pm: Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries. I have never heard about that, the gay lobby should have been all over that like white on rice.  So what are you talking about and some sort of reference and expansion would be nice.  Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. It was most likely a carry over from the old Roman Empire laws, or possibly even something to do inheritance laws (for the Order for Uniting Two Men). However, it's not really something the Church would want advertised in recent times. Don't be soo stupid. This was not 'same-sex marriage', it was a ceremony of brother-making. Boswell tried to twist it into proto-homo-marriage but of course couldn't because it had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

Which one?? the  'Office of Same-Sex Union' or the  'Order for Uniting Two Men'??

And, incidentally, WHY would the Church even have a ceremony of 'brother-making'???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:19am:

Not really surprising you haven't heard of it.

Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:02am:

Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 10:37am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Datalife wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 11:35pm: Add to that, there was a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church during the 10th-13th centuries. I have never heard about that, the gay lobby should have been all over that like white on rice.  So what are you talking about and some sort of reference and expansion would be nice.  Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. It was most likely a carry over from the old Roman Empire laws, or possibly even something to do inheritance laws (for the Order for Uniting Two Men). However, it's not really something the Church would want advertised in recent times. Don't be soo stupid. This was not 'same-sex marriage', it was a ceremony of brother-making. Boswell tried to twist it into proto-homo-marriage but of course couldn't because it had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Which one?? the  'Office of Same-Sex Union' or the  'Order for Uniting Two Men'?? And, incidentally, WHY would the Church even have a ceremony of 'brother-making'???

Delphys - womb,
Adelphos = 'together in the womb', brother, Adam, Adolf (!)
Adelphopoiesis (Order for Uniting Two Men)
Philadephia (the city of 'brotherly love', an early pilgrim city)
Christadelphians, Christian Brethren
Brotherhood of man

Brotherhood. Two men together are BROTHERS. The Church was interested in spiritual brotherhood, also known as adelphopoiesis. Comes from this: John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history?

I did, but if you like:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:50am:

Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history?  I did, but if you like: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

Well I read your source and there was nothing in there about a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church.

See, this is why I wanted to see what you are looking at and basing your assertion on.  Do you have any reference for your claim? 

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:50am: Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history?  I did, but if you like: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp Well I read your source and there was nothing in there about a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church. See, this is why I wanted to see what you are looking at and basing your assertion on.  Do you have any reference for your claim?

Read a book or two.

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860

"Both highly praised and intensely controversial, this brilliant book produces dramatic evidence that at one time the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches not only sanctioned unions between partners of the same sex, but sanctified them--in ceremonies strikingly similar to heterosexual marriage ceremonies."

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:50am: Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history?  I did, but if you like: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp Well I read your source and there was nothing in there about a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church. See, this is why I wanted to see what you are looking at and basing your assertion on.  Do you have any reference for your claim?

Sorry, right author, wrong book.
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Same_sex_unions_in_premodern_Europe.html?id=iRL9cXA1m1IC&redir_esc=y

Can't find an excerpt of it right now, but it is available as a pdf ebook. On second thought, don't try the ebook download, I just hit a malware


also mentioned here:
http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com.au/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:

Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:02pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:50am: Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 11:29am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:19am: Not really surprising you haven't heard of it. Well yeah, that's what I said.  So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history?  I did, but if you like: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp Well I read your source and there was nothing in there about a same sex marriage ceremony used by the Catholic Church. See, this is why I wanted to see what you are looking at and basing your assertion on.  Do you have any reference for your claim?  Sorry, right author, wrong book. http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Same_sex_unions_in_premodern_Europe.html?id=iRL9cXA1m1IC&redir_esc=y Can't find an excerpt of it right now, but it is available as a pdf ebook. also mentioned here: http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com.au/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html

If he clicks on the picture of the book, he can read a few pages for free:

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Read a book or two.

riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt.  So the best both of you have got is a Simpsons quality assertion that it must be true cos it is in a book but neither of you can actually post a paragraph of what that book states.

Is this what passes for debate on this forum?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Review of John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe
by Camille Paglia.

Boswell's style, here as in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, is to pack an enormous amount of dry, irrelevant bibliographic material into scores of footnotes, building a pretentious barricade around his thin and vacillating central presentation. Meanwhile, crucial research is often avoided. For example, one would expect a historian discussing medieval sexuality to at least cursorily consider the enormous "courtly love" tradition, with its inherent perversities, but that is relegated to a footnote, which glibly lists, without explanation, 23 books and articles for us to read. Boswell's knowledge of psychology or general sexual history seems minimal, confined to a handful of chic, narrow academic books cited from the 1980s.

Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp

Nuf said.

Paglia, unlike Boswell, is smart, scholarly, insightful.

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:18pm: Read a book or two. riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt.  So the best both of you have got is a Simpsons quality assertion that it must be true cos it is in a book but neither of you can actually post a paragraph of what that book states. Is this what passes for debate on this forum? ;D ;D ;D ;D

All you had to say was you don't read books.

We would have believed you.

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Review of John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by Camille Paglia. Boswell's style, here as in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, is to pack an enormous amount of dry, irrelevant bibliographic material into scores of footnotes, building a pretentious barricade around his thin and vacillating central presentation. Meanwhile, crucial research is often avoided. For example, one would expect a historian discussing medieval sexuality to at least cursorily consider the enormous "courtly love" tradition, with its inherent perversities, but that is relegated to a footnote, which glibly lists, without explanation, 23 books and articles for us to read. Boswell's knowledge of psychology or general sexual history seems minimal, confined to a handful of chic, narrow academic books cited from the 1980s. Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp Nuf said. Paglia, unlike Boswell, is smart, scholarly, insightful.

And opinions are like Sorens arseholes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

If he clicks on the picture of the book, he can read a few pages for free: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860

Yes, you can read the index. Anything else? 

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:26pm:     If he clicks on the picture of the book, he can read a few pages for free: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860 Yes, you can read the index. Anything else?

Yes, much more.

Many pages are available when you click on the book.

The pages are very slow to load, but they are certainly there.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:18pm: Read a book or two. riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt.  So the best both of you have got is a Simpsons quality assertion that it must be true cos it is in a book but neither of you can actually post a paragraph of what that book states. Is this what passes for debate on this forum? ;D ;D ;D ;D All you had to say was you don't read books. We would have believed you.

I know who is making themselves look silly and it aint me. 

Most debate forums I go to it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. 

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Review of John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by Camille Paglia. Boswell's style, here as in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, is to pack an enormous amount of dry, irrelevant bibliographic material into scores of footnotes, building a pretentious barricade around his thin and vacillating central presentation. Meanwhile, crucial research is often avoided. For example, one would expect a historian discussing medieval sexuality to at least cursorily consider the enormous "courtly love" tradition, with its inherent perversities, but that is relegated to a footnote, which glibly lists, without explanation, 23 books and articles for us to read. Boswell's knowledge of psychology or general sexual history seems minimal, confined to a handful of chic, narrow academic books cited from the 1980s. Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp Nuf said. Paglia, unlike Boswell, is smart, scholarly, insightful.

Maybe you should also post the response to Paglia's review?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

Yes, much more. Many pages are available when you click on the book. The pages are very slow to load, but they are certainly there.

Very good then, toddle off and return with a paragraph or anything from the book about the Catholic Church performing same sex marriages. 

I aint your frigging research agent.   8-) 8-)

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:40pm: Datalife wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:18pm: Read a book or two. riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt.  So the best both of you have got is a Simpsons quality assertion that it must be true cos it is in a book but neither of you can actually post a paragraph of what that book states. Is this what passes for debate on this forum? ;D ;D ;D ;D All you had to say was you don't read books. We would have believed you. I know who is making themselves look silly and it aint me.  Most debate forums I go to it is up to the person making the claim to prove it.

You are looking sillier with each new post you make.

Here is what you requested:

"So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? "

And, that is exactly what you were provided with.

You're not very good at this, are you?

I'm guessing the concept of church run same-sex marriages upsets your religious sensibilities?

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:45pm: Yes, much more. Many pages are available when you click on the book. The pages are very slow to load, but they are certainly there. Very good then, toddle off and return with a paragraph or anything from the book about the Catholic Church performing same sex marriages.  I aint your frigging research agent.   8-) 8-)

Direct quote from you:

"So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? "

You're not very good at this, are you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Here is what you requested: "So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? " And, that is exactly what you were provided with. You're not very good at this, are you?

I did look it up, I have looked up all the references provided.

Your reference only gives you the first page and there is nothing there about the Catholic Church performing same sex marriages which you would know if you had bothered to read it yourself. 

You are making yourself look sillier by the post, so please carry on.   8-)

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Here is what you requested: "So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? " And, that is exactly what you were provided with. You're not very good at this, are you? I did look it up, I have looked up all the references provided. Your reference only gives you the first page ...

Incorrect.

If you click on the picture of the book there are several pages available to read.  The first 6 pages are there, and then there are many other pages from the rear of the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860

It's only $15: buy a copy.

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Here is what you requested: "So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? " And, that is exactly what you were provided with. You're not very good at this, are you? I did look it up, I have looked up all the references provided. Your reference only gives you the first page and there is nothing there about the Catholic Church performing same sex marriages which you would know if you had bothered to read it yourself.  You are making yourself look sillier by the post, so please carry on.   8-)

Your internet must be broken or slow them.
The amazon link gives the whole preface, the introduction, the first 6 pages and the entire appendixes of translation (pages 283 to 412) which has the "office of same sex union" from the 14th century, among others..

.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 1:47pm:

It's only $15: buy a copy.

Rrrriiggggghtttt, and here we go again.  Twas a simple request,  all I wanted was to be able to look up the source of the statement that was cited to prove that the Catholic Church conducted same sex marriages.

Not a big ask surely for a debate forum?  And now peccerhead is in the laughable position of demonstrating nothing but telling me I should buy a book.

Is this what passes for debate here? 

Though it has been fun and I am sure peccerhead regrets dropping his oar in since he is now looking like a complete fool.   8-)

Adam = Eve

not

Adam = Steve

do what you want in the privacy of your own home

but STFU whining about marriage rights

have your own civil union

Datalife wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 1:47pm: It's only $15: buy a copy. Twas a simple request,  all I wanted was to be able to look up the source of the statement that was cited to prove that the Catholic Church conducted same sex marriages.

And you were certainly given that opportunity.

The fact that you failed miserably is not our fault.

Take ownership of your shortcomings, instead of whining like a baby.

"So are you going to provide a reference at all?  Something that I can look up or are you the only source of this bit of history? "

You were given the reference, and you decided not to take it any further.  At least we know what we're dealing with now.

Gnads wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 2:42pm:

Adam = Eve not Adam = Steve do what you want in the privacy of your own home but STFU whining about marriage rights have your own civil union

I was wondering when there'd be an openly christian point of view used..

Gnads wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 2:42pm:

Adam = Eve

Adam = Adam, surely.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

You were given the reference, and you decided not to take it any further.  At least we know what we're dealing with now.

Twas not there and if you reckon it is there then post it divkhead.  But I know you or gizmo cannot post it cos it is not contained in any of the references you have provided and neither of you have been able to find it either. 

Make a claim in a debate forum onus is on you to provide the proof and evidence for the statement, something I have read you say several times peccerhead. 

Lookin' a bit stoooppid aintcha?   8-)  Sorry you dropped by?   ;D ;D

Quote:

Adam = Adam surely?

Yeah it's the new remedy for global overpopulation.

Why don't you try it ... you might like it

going by the tone of some responses

you could have a couple of takers here (or givers) ;D

Gnads wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Quote: Adam = Adam surely? Yeah it's the new remedy for global overpopulation. Why don't you try it ... you might like it going by the tone of some responses you could have a couple of takers here (or givers) ;D

Did you ever study mathematics at school?

Did they teach you the difference between this = and this + ?

In the context it was used there is no reference to mathematics

btw I don't have fleas .... you nitpicker.

Gnads wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

In the context it was used there is no reference to mathematics

How is it that 'Adam equals Eve' ?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

I'm guessing the concept of church run same-sex marriages upsets your religious sensibilities?

They were not marriages. They were ceremonies whereby they become brothers, explicitly stressing the spiritual nature of the bond. Grafting gay sexual fetishes onto this is anachronistic and totally contrary to any evidence. Even Boswell avoids identifying these relationships as sexual.

It is ludicrous to insinuate that monastic orders introduced same sex marriages (but not heterosexual marriages) in open ceremonies. Just eyewateringly, arseseepingly ridiculous.

Is your relationship with your best friend sexual? No. Nevertheless, it is a same-sex relationship. Male friendship, female friendship are same-sex relationship but that doesn't mean that they are thereby or therefore sexual relationships.

FFS marriage =  Adam + Eve

are you happy now? ::)

you = mountains/molehills

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:50pm: I'm guessing the concept of church run same-sex marriages upsets your religious sensibilities? They were not marriages. They were ceremonies whereby they become brothers, explicitly stressing the spiritual nature of the bond. Grafting gay sexual fetishes onto this is anachronistic and totally contrary to any evidence. Even Boswell avoids identifying these relationships as sexual. It is ludicrous to insinuate that monastic orders introduced same sex marriages (but not heterosexual marriages) in open ceremonies. Just eyewateringly, arseseepingly ridiculous. Is your relationship with your best friend sexual? No. Nevertheless, it is a same-sex relationship. Male friendship, female friendship are same-sex relationship but that doesn't mean that they are thereby or therefore sexual relationships.

No, but we also haven't had a church service declaring us 'brothers' either...

I suggest you read page 317 at this amazon link..

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[type|link[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:50pm: I'm guessing the concept of church run same-sex marriages upsets your religious sensibilities? They were not marriages. They were ceremonies whereby they become brothers, explicitly stressing the spiritual nature of the bond. Grafting gay sexual fetishes onto this is anachronistic and totally contrary to any evidence. Even Boswell avoids identifying these relationships as sexual. It is ludicrous to insinuate that monastic orders introduced same sex marriages (but not heterosexual marriages) in open ceremonies. Just eyewateringly, arseseepingly ridiculous. Is your relationship with your best friend sexual? No. Nevertheless, it is a same-sex relationship. Male friendship, female friendship are same-sex relationship but that doesn't mean that they are thereby or therefore sexual relationships.

Actually, no one is suggesting that there weren't heterosexual marriages.

What's ludicrous is the suggestion that homosexuality is a new (modern concept) and that same-sex unions/marriages were first thought of in the 1970's....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

Actually, no one is suggesting that there weren't heterosexual marriages. What's ludicrous is the suggestion that homosexuality is a new (modern concept) and that same-sex unions/marriages were first thought of in the 1970's....

Really? When were they thought of (other than by a mad Roman mperor and by a gay English professor misreading and misunderstanding medievel Easter Orthodox theology and rituals).

"Similar blood brotherhood rituals were practiced by other cultures, including American Indians, ancient Chinese as well as Germanic and Scandinavian peoples."
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brotherhood#Scandinavia

Homosexual acts are not new. Identifying openly as a homosexual, let alone as 'gay', leading a 'gay lifestyle' is new.

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 3:55pm: Actually, no one is suggesting that there weren't heterosexual marriages. What's ludicrous is the suggestion that homosexuality is a new (modern concept) and that same-sex unions/marriages were first thought of in the 1970's.... Really? When were they thought of (other than by a mad Roman mperor and by a gay English professor misreading and misunderstanding medievel Easter Orthodox theology and rituals). "Similar blood brotherhood rituals were practiced by other cultures, including American Indians, ancient Chinese as well as Germanic and Scandinavian peoples." See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brotherhood#Scandinavia Homosexual acts are not new. Identifying openly as a homosexual, let alone as 'gay', leading a 'gay lifestyle' is new.

It might have been 'new' in Ancient Sumeria (but I doubt it),  but it's nowhere near to 'new' nowadays...

"Archaeologists in the Czech Republic have unearthed the grave of what may be the remains of the oldest known homosexual or transgender man.

The prehistoric body dates to the Copper age -- or 2900 to 2500 years ago -- and was buried in a manner that was typically reserved for women.

The male skeleton was found on its side, facing east, and was surrounded by domestic jugs, objects previously seen only in female graves. An oval, egg-shaped container, usually associated with female burials, was also found at the feet of the skeleton.

"From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously, so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake," lead archaeologist Kamila Remisova Vesinova told the U.K.'s Telegraph."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oldest-gay-man/story?id=13320808

Quote:

"Archaeologists in the Czech Republic have unearthed the grave of what may be the remains of the oldest known homosexual or transgender man. The prehistoric body dates to the Copper age -- or 2900 to 2500 years ago -- and was buried in a manner that was typically reserved for women. The male skeleton was found on its side, facing east, and was surrounded by domestic jugs, objects previously seen only in female graves. An oval, egg-shaped container, usually associated with female burials, was also found at the feet of the skeleton.

Yep .... dead give away everytime  ;D ;D ;D

Gnads wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Quote: "Archaeologists in the Czech Republic have unearthed the grave of what may be the remains of the oldest known homosexual or transgender man. The prehistoric body dates to the Copper age -- or 2900 to 2500 years ago -- and was buried in a manner that was typically reserved for women. The male skeleton was found on its side, facing east, and was surrounded by domestic jugs, objects previously seen only in female graves. An oval, egg-shaped container, usually associated with female burials, was also found at the feet of the skeleton. Yep .... dead give away everytime  ;D ;D ;D

Actually, yes it is.  Prehistoric burials were often extremely particular and ritualised.

Are you going anywhere with this gizmo?

Cos it sounds like after years of (fallaciously) saying how the church shouldn't dictate who gets to marry, you're now looking to the same church as a beacon of progress.

A bit of clarification, please.

Plus, it bears little relation to your original statement:


Quote:

it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years.

... wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 10:14am:

Are you going anywhere with this gizmo? Cos it sounds like after years of (fallaciously) saying how the church shouldn't dictate who gets to marry, you're now looking to the same church as a beacon of progress. A bit of clarification, please.

No, not a beacon of progress, more like a beacon of hypocrisy.

The stuff I posted is to challenge and knock down the idea that the current views on same-sex marriages/civil unions are relatively recent, and based purely on the dictates of the Christian churches and were very very different through most of human history.

... wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

Plus, it bears little relation to your original statement: Quote: it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years.

Sure it does. There have been same-sex unions (either marriage or civil) all through history (and prehistory, which the 'oldest gay burial' link indicates), and it's only been in the last 500 to 800 years (hence 'several') that society has considered marriage heterosexual only.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 10:34am:

... wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 10:14am: Are you going anywhere with this gizmo? Cos it sounds like after years of (fallaciously) saying how the church shouldn't dictate who gets to marry, you're now looking to the same church as a beacon of progress. A bit of clarification, please. No, not a beacon of progress, more like a beacon of hypocrisy. The stuff I posted is to challenge and knock down the idea that the current views on same-sex marriages/civil unions are relatively recent, and based purely on the dictates of the Christian churches and were very very different through most of human history.

This is silly (but you knew that).

For the sake of argument, lets just assume that the rate of homosexuality has remained constant for all time.  Estimates are ~2-3%.

Now lets assume that they all got married.  For what reason we can only imagine, since it serves none of the historical reasons for marriage, save "an expression of love" which was unheard of before the 1800's....but well gloss over that for now.

So you end up with a 97-98% rate of marriage being heterosexual in nature.  With that kind of proportion, nobody could honestly say it's not a "heterosexual instituion" could they?

This is what runs me about this site - you're all more interested in being a obstinate fools, than actually advancing an argument.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

... wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 10:18am: Plus, it bears little relation to your original statement: Quote: it's only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years. Sure it does. There have been same-sex unions (either marriage or civil) all through history (and prehistory, which the 'oldest gay burial' link indicates), and it's only been in the last 500 to 800 years (hence 'several') that society has considered marriage heterosexual only.

That's an extreeeeeeeeemely long bow to draw.

You have some fanciful interpretations by a homosexual professor and a dude buried with an egg, therefore homosexual marriages (which serve no point at all) have been conducted althroughout history.

You're about as objective as that Botwell character.

... wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 10:34am: ... wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 10:14am: Are you going anywhere with this gizmo? Cos it sounds like after years of (fallaciously) saying how the church shouldn't dictate who gets to marry, you're now looking to the same church as a beacon of progress. A bit of clarification, please. No, not a beacon of progress, more like a beacon of hypocrisy. The stuff I posted is to challenge and knock down the idea that the current views on same-sex marriages/civil unions are relatively recent, and based purely on the dictates of the Christian churches and were very very different through most of human history. This is silly (but you knew that). For the sake of argument, lets just assume that the rate of homosexuality has remained constant for all time.  Estimates are ~2-3%. Now lets assume that they all got married.  For what reason we can only imagine, since it serves none of the historical reasons for marriage, save "an expression of love" which was unheard of before the 1800's....but well gloss over that for now. So you end up with a 97-98% rate of marriage being heterosexual in nature.  With that kind of proportion, nobody could honestly say it's not a "heterosexual instituion" could they? This is what runs me about this site - you're all more interested in being a obstinate fools, than actually advancing an argument.

Well from things I've read, an estimate of 2-3% is very low. Closer to 8-10% (and that's only an average, possible higher depending on society). If you'd actually read the link, you realise that it's not 'based on a dude buried with an egg'. That dude is simply the oldest burial like that that's been found.

It's apparently not uncommon to find similar burials. To qoute from the article:

"Men in many cultures throughout history have occupied a sort of liminal space between the two sexes: They would dress and act like women, but that behavior would have no bearing on their sexual orientation or who they slept with. These "third-gender" people, said Arnold, were sometimes even accorded special spiritual or shaman status in their societies.

Homosexuality Is as Old as Mankind

"This is not an uncommon phenomenon in prehistoric cemetery populations," said Arnold. "It's always there, but in small percentages."

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

"Men in many cultures throughout history have occupied a sort of liminal space between the two sexes: They would dress and act like women, but that behavior would have no bearing on their sexual orientation or who they slept with. These "third-gender" people, said Arnold, were sometimes even accorded special spiritual or shaman status in their societies.

I'm sure homosexuals and other...outliers have been around for a long time, that's not being disputed.  What is in dispute is that "(marriage has) only been considered a heterosexual one for the last several hundred years.

Saying there have been....outliers and they were often "shamans" just shoots that argument in the foot.  Shamans were often forbidden to marry.


A modern example of this "she/he" thing is the faafafines of samoa.  Boys brought up as women....yet if they marry, it's always to a woman. Why do you think that is?  Go on, answer honestly, it'll save a helluva lot of fooking around. 

.

Until this argument I've never heard a word about same-sex marriage being anywhere accepted as 'normal' and a part of marriage.

As far back as any history I've ever read there have been homosexual acts, but never heard of anything like same-sex marriage as such - thought here was a lot of rejection of same-sex relationships.

I think this entire argument is based on nothing but someone's fantasy.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

I think this entire argument is based on nothing but someone's fantasy.

Aye. I think if there was any credibility to the ancient Catholic Church performing same sex marriage ceremonies poo jabbing lobby groups would be all over it like white on rice.  If even they cannot bend it (hahaha) to suit their purposes I suspect there is nothing in it. 

It's funny - homosexual acts were sort of tolerated as a means of sexual release... people did some strange things - but that still didn't make it the sexual preference of preference.

Remember the Wyatt Earp story?  Those Cowboys gang people were notorious for homosexuality - Johnny Ringo was a 'flute player' - but they still went for women when in town.  Getting the rocks off elsewise apparently was acceptable when there was no poontang around.

Brokeass Mountain... Homo On the Range...