From: http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm
"Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John."
Why deny and protest your own history?
2007-09-23 08:01:59 · 14 answers · asked by serious troll 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree, and as the ordained assistant minister of same-sex unions in the Universal Church of Beingness, I can personally attest to the moral supremacy of same-sex unions over more "traditional" forms of marriage which are far more threatening to society. It is widely known that Jesus himself was in a same-sex union with Pontius Pilate, and often spoke in glowing terms about the holy sacrament of sodomy and the parable of the sword swallower. In the year 384 AD, the emporer Constantine mandated that homosexuality be used exclusively as a means of birth control, and unfortunately this fact has been lost to history, thanks to the bigoted and corrupt Catholic Church, revising the history of this proud, distinctly Christian tradition.
2007-09-23 08:17:23 · answer #1 · answered by rrbowker2002 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The recorded human history shows the blunders man has committed and the loss of life in hundreds of millions in the most brutal and violent wars of no significance to human development in civilization and good living!
The development in culture including the marriage and family values has a long history coupled with ethics and morality plus the love-bond between couples to maintain the living with highest social order! The deviation or the exception in history cannot be taken for acceptance for today's living, against the natural laws!
We are not animals and we don't want to be animals and we cannot accept to become animals in selecting and following this practice of same sex marriage! However, in the name of freedom of living if some fools could do it, we just get away from them, as we do for the animals on the road!
2007-09-23 09:16:13 · answer #2 · answered by anjana 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The word in Greek is "adelphopoiesis", and is explicitly non-carnal in function. Boswell's interpretation, while logically possible, is not singularly necessary, so it does little to help the debate. It is much easier to simply acknowledge (in the US) the separation of church and state, and disallow any argument that has religious premises. Put simply, if an interpretation of the word "marriage" is a religious one, it should be ignored.
2007-09-23 08:26:09 · answer #3 · answered by neil s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I protest now because the Bible condemns it. Therefore I cannot do anything but condemn it. No matter how hard I may try, I cannot change God's plan for mankind.
I do not agree with what so-called Christians did then nor what they do today. I only have to account for myself. I am not a person that thinks they are a Christian because I once said that I believe in Jesus, nor did I pray for Him to come into my heart. I did obey from the heart the form of doctrine that I find in the book of conversions, Acts. I do realize Romans through Revelation was written to people already Christian, so it does not tell one how to become what they already are.
These things are NOT my history because I was baptized into Jesus the Christ and was therefore added to his body, the church, in 1948. I did not go back before that time so that is not my history. Today, I am responsible for me and not false Christians.
2007-09-23 08:14:13 · answer #4 · answered by mesquiteskeetr 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Christians are humans too and therefore make mistakes or may misinterpret the Word of God. Obviously, these events of the past are accounts of Christians making mistakes about what is right and wrong. As you have heard I'm sure, God's plan was for the union of Man and Woman and nothing else. Anything else is sinful and disrespectful of God's vision for human relationships. It's not to say it can not be forgiven, for we serve a merciful and loving God, but first one must admit his wrongfulness.
2007-09-23 08:12:12 · answer #5 · answered by Steve 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No True Christian will ever approve of "same sex marriage".... however, I will admit that there are a few, and it is very few, of The True Church, have been deceived... But the Word of God is clear on the subject... and those who choose to distort and deceive will be held accountable and will suffer for their deceit.And they will not be counted with those of The Church... those who are deceived, if of The Church, will also have to stand and answer for their positions. but being deceived is, of it's self, not going to cost them their Salvation.
Homosexual acts are against The Word and Will of God. Same sex unions are included in that ban.
2007-09-23 08:13:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
JOHN BOSWELL, AUTHOR OF SAME-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, died December 26 from AIDS. His recently-published book advanced the false thesis that in the Middle Ages the Church performed liturgical rites, similar to marriage ceremonies, that solemnized "unions" between males. (Boswell's thesis in an earlier book was that the Church's attitude toward homosexuality arose only during the latter part of the Middle Ages.)
Most reviewers of Same-Sex Unions recognized it for what it is, special pleading by a gay activist who placed his ideology ahead of good scholarship. In fact, the Church never approved of homosexual unions, and its "position" did not arise only in the Middle Ages, but has its roots in the Bible. (Read Paul's epistles, for example.)
What Boswell transformed into "marriage ceremonies" were rites in which two men "adopted" one another as brothers; this was an offshoot of the Middle Ages' system of fealty. There was nothing sexual about these "unions." A modern equivalent, once popular among children, might be ceremonies through which boys became "blood brothers."
Most reviewers immediately saw through Boswell's book; they recognized his not-very-hidden agenda. That was not the case with Fr. Paul K. Thomas, the archivist for the Archdiocese of Baltimore and a member of the Gay/Lesbian Outreach. He reviewed Same-Sex Unions in the November 30 issue of The Catholic Review.
Thomas accepts Boswell's thesis that "homosexual Christian history" has "long been ignored and even suppressed." He maintains that "earlier researchers disregarded positive archival materials in an attempt to justify total religious opposition to homosexuality." He seems oblivious to the idea, expressed by numerous reviewers, that Boswell mistakes "blood brother"-type ceremonies for "marriage" ceremonies--a big distinction. He argues that "same-sex unions, although perhaps without genital expression, were once approved and sanctified by the Church and at times became highly idealized in Western society." It's a small step from that, of course, to the argument that same-sex unions involving "genital expression" should be "approved and sanctified by the Church."
Thomas's review strikes us, again, as special pleading. It seems to have been composed to push an agenda. But what's new? Why is it likely that no one will be surprised to find Boswell's kind of scholarship touted by a priest involved with a ministry that probably doesn't do much to promote the Church's teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts?
Is the Gay/Lesbian Outreach closer to Dignity or to Courage in what it teaches? Are the gays and lesbians reached by this ministry invited to live chaste lives and to repent of any homosexual acts or illicit liaisons they may have undertaken? Are they called to the same sexual standards that unmarried heterosexuals are called to by the Church? Does anyone have real doubts about the answers to these questions?
2007-09-23 08:08:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
Right!
Uh Huh!
Is this the same experts that give "Jesus-like" similarities to the God of The Sun, in Egypt? . . . and then "reverse engineer" the whole thing to make it appear like Christians stole it from Ra?
Today . . . you can find a liar, I'm sorry, an Expert to say anything . . .
2007-09-23 08:13:23 · answer #8 · answered by Clark H 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If he created Adam......he created Steve as well....stop hatin' people, geez.
2007-09-23 08:15:30 · answer #9 · answered by squishy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they deny and protest their history all the tim--the witch trials, that hitler was a catholic and the third reich was christian, that the KKK was a christian organization--they have no use for history--only mythology
2007-09-23 08:07:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋