Bad news for believers in "traditional marriage"

[Black Aliss]

Apparently same-sex marriage is traditional, at least for, oh, the last thousand years or so.

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.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

http://humanitysteam.org/node/3299

[PennySycamore]

I read Professor Boswell's book Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe as well as his earlier work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Both books are very heavy with scholarship and both are wonderful! Some scholars did dispute his research, but I wonder if that's changed now. It's too bad that Dr Boswell died in 1994 and is not here to see the tide of legislation and court rulings favoring same sex marriage.

[August]

Just so long as they don't outlaw slavery. I have a traditional marriage, and my husband was hoping to hand down a few of his concubines to our son when he comes of age.

[shedemei]

Much as I'd like to believe it, Boswell's interpretation seems sketchy. First, everything in that article is based on a book that John Boswell published in 1994, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. It was criticized at that time and now as relying on incorrect translations and a preexisting bias. Multiple sources also point out that adelphopoiesis didn't form an impediment to marriage, which would imply that it's either not a marriage rite or the church was also OK with bigamy.

This is an interesting article (albeit an Orthodox apologetic) that compares the marriage rites in Byzantine society with adelphopoiesis, showing that they really were not that similar and that adelphopoiesis was likely a form of establishing kinship.

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews. ... 94-viscuso

Further discussion of kinship rituatls:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZtQP5 ... ry&f=false

Apparently Boswell took quotes out of context when discussing same-sex marriage as being accepted in the church in Ireland, and it was actually condemned quite strongly in context in the work he quoted:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.p ... age/28831/ (again, religious but has a link to the original material Boswell cited

http://davidould.net/?p=3919

[shedemei]

Don't get me wrong—I'm all for marriage equality. But Boswell's work doesn't seem like a good basis for a strong argument.

[BlackSheep]

This is an interesting article (albeit an Orthodox apologetic) that compares the marriage rites in Byzantine society with adelphopoiesis, showing that they really were not that similar and that adelphopoiesis was likely a form of establishing kinship.

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews. ... 94-viscuso