Historical Christian Support Of Homosexuality?

[Skinzo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1337026594' post='2430574']
Yeah, I was wondering after reading some of the text if the supposed "marriage rite" was really more of a blessing rite that blessed what we would now think of as Mormon missionaries - 2 at a time to every door.
[/quote]

What makes it more clear is a medieval text on the subject from a 13th century canon lawyer named Hostiensis which was cited earlier in this thread by Cappie. That removes all doubts.

S.

[Socrates]

From my readings on the subject, the ceremony in question was essentially a "blood brother" type thing to cement peace between warring nobles. There is zero evidence that it had anything to do with homosexuality, or was considered equivalent to marriage.

This is just desperate modern "gay rights" propaganda, rather than real scholarship.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337048395' post='2430712']
From my readings on the subject, the ceremony in question was essentially a "blood brother" type thing to cement peace between warring nobles. There is zero evidence that it had anything to do with homosexuality, or was considered equivalent to marriage.

This is just desperate modern "gay rights" propaganda, rather than real scholarship.
[/quote]

Just because it's wrong doesn't make it propaganda.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337056924' post='2430782']
Just because it's wrong doesn't make it propaganda.
[/quote]

Well, just because it's propaganda doesn't make it right either.
Propaganda defined: "[b]Propaganda[/b] is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position"
Sounds like it fits to me.
S.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Skinzo

[4588686]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337079805' post='2430823']
Well, just because it's propaganda doesn't make it right either.
Propaganda defined: "[b]Propaganda[/b] is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position"
Sounds like it fits to me.
S.
[/quote]

Ok. Then everything is propaganda. Including your post. The literal definition of propaganda is very broad. The term is commonly used with a more narrow definition and Socrates' contrast makes clear that he was using the more narrow meaning. That is that it is a pure contrivance aimed at influencing others.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337106869' post='2430959']
Ok. Then everything is propaganda. Including your post. The literal definition of propaganda is very broad. The term is commonly used with a more narrow definition and Socrates' contrast makes clear that he was using the more narrow meaning. That is that it is a pure contrivance aimed at influencing others.
[/quote]

Not at all. There is quite a difference between an objective, scholarly discussion of something with the intent of arriving at truth regardless of whether that suits our own personal predilections, and writing an advocacy piece tries to push an interpretation not supported by the facts of the matter.

S.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Skinzo

[Socrates]

Dr. Boswell's dubious "discoveries" couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with the current political push for "gay marriage."

No, of course not, nothing but the pure, unbiased Search for Truth. Of course.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337120250' post='2431023']
Dr. Boswell's dubious "discoveries" couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with the current political push for "gay marriage."

No, of course not, nothing but the pure, unbiased Search for Truth. Of course.
[/quote]

Well he's been dead for 18 years. So I doubt that it was a concocted effort to lend support to the current debate about gay marriage. Not that you should do some basic reaserch before throwing out accusations about the integrity of a very respected scholar. Here's where you ignore your blunder and make a predictable dodge by speaking with an unpleasant disposition about how being a 'respected scholar' these days doesn't mean anything rawr rawr rawr liberals rawr rawr rawr beaver dam hippies.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Hasan

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337124476' post='2431045']
Well he's been dead for 18 years. So I doubt that it was a concocted effort to lend support to the current debate about gay marriage. Not that you should do some basic reaserch before throwing out accusations about the integrity of a very respected scholar. Here's where you ignore your blunder and make a predictable dodge by speaking with an unpleasant disposition about how being a 'respected scholar' these days doesn't mean anything rawr rawr rawr liberals rawr rawr rawr beaver dam hippies.
[/quote]
Awww come on, Socrates is not like that.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337124476' post='2431045']


Well he's been dead for 18 years. So I doubt that it was a concocted effort to lend support to the current debate about gay marriage. Not that you should do some basic reaserch before throwing out accusations about the integrity of a very respected scholar. Here's where you ignore your blunder and make a predictable dodge by speaking with an unpleasant disposition about how being a 'respected scholar' these days doesn't mean anything rawr rawr rawr liberals rawr rawr rawr beaver dam hippies.
[/quote]

I didnt know advocates for gay 'marriage' didnt exist 18 or 32 years ago! I also am sure Dr. Boswell's wish to reconcile his faith with his sexuality had no adverse or bias effect on his scholarly work on the Church's stance on sodomy.

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337126927' post='2431059']
I didnt know advocates for gay 'marriage' didnt exist 18 or 32 years ago! [/QUOTE]

They certainly did. However Socrates was specific in his assertion to the current debate over gay marriage.


[QUOTE]I also am sure Dr. Boswell's wish to reconcile his faith with his sexuality had no adverse or bias effect on his scholarly work on the Church's stance on sodomy.
[/quote]

I'm sure it provided some of his motivation to investigate the topic. But the ad hominems that proliferate this thread are cowardly. he wasn't a hack. He was an extremely gifted philologist and a very respected historian. Yale doesn't just hand out Professorships like candy. I doubt that a single person here has actually read the book in question or anything by the historian whose integrity they are so gleefly attacking. Saying that he is wrong is one thing. Accusing him of deception and willful misrepresentation without a shred of evidence is despicable and intellectual lazy.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Hasan

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337127423' post='2431062']
They certainly did. However our profoundly unsocratic Socrates was specific in his assertion to the current debate over gay marriage. [/quote]

When did the 'current' debate start? Do gay advocates from 18 to 30 years ago advocating the same as gay advocates today have nothing at all to do with the 'current' debate?


[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337127423' post='2431062']
I'm sure it provided some of his motivation to investigate the topic. But the ad hominems that proliferate this thread are cowardly. he wasn't a hack. He was an extremely gifted philologist and a very respected historian. Yale doesn't just hand out Professorships like candy. I doubt that a single person here has actually read the book in question or anything by the historian whose integrity they are so gleefly attacking. Saying that he is wrong is one thing. Accusing him of deception and willful misrepresentation without a shred of evidence is despicable and intellectual lazy.
[/quote]

No one has called him a hack in this thread. Your insight into these 'ad hominems' are either imaginary or blown completely out of proportion.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337128925' post='2431068']
When did the 'current' debate start? Do gay advocates from 18 to 30 years ago advocating the same as gay advocates today have nothing at all to do with the 'current' debate?[/QUOTE]

Seriously? Socrates referred to the 'current political push' for gay marriage. The gay rights movement was a fringe movement in 1994. The current political push is much more mainstream and many of the actors in question are different. You're just kicking up dust.




[QUOTE] No one has called him a hack in this thread. Your insight into these 'ad hominems' are either imaginary or blow completely out of proportion.
[/quote]
I guess I got confused when Socrates said:

[i]This is just desperate modern "gay rights" propaganda, rather than real scholarship.[/i]

Edited May 16, 2012 by Hasan

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337129578' post='2431075']
Seriously? Socrates referred to the 'current political push' for gay marriage. The gay rights movement was a fringe movement in 1994. The current political push is much more mainstream and many of the actors in question are different. You're just kicking up dust.[/quote]

The gay rights movement was certainly more organized and accepted by 1994 than you admit. The movement was born out of the sexual revolution of the 1960's, by the late 1970's the movement had several strongholds in various liberal leaning states. The same political push maybe be more mainstream and have 'different actors' but they are advocating the same as [color=#282828]gay advocates from 18 to 30 years ago. What they advocate today is based very much on what was argued 18 to 30 years ago and has a lot to do with the 'current' debate. [/color]




[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337129578' post='2431075']
Hm. I guess I got confused when Socrates said:

[i]This is just desperate modern "gay rights" propaganda, rather than real scholarship.[/i]
[/quote]

Yes, like I said, you are indeed blowing it out of proportion.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337131046' post='2431088']
The gay rights movement was certainly more organized and accepted by 1994 that you admit. The movement was born out of the sexual revolution of the 1960's, by the late 1970's the movement had several strongholds in various liberal leaning states. The same political push maybe be more mainstream and have 'different actors' but they are advocating the same as [color=#282828]gay advocates from 18 to 30 years ago. What they advocate today is based very much on what was argued 18 to 30 years ago and has a lot to do with the 'current' debate. [/QUOTE][/color]

[color=#282828]Actually in the US it was born in 1924. I guess Socrates intended describe every political movement associated with gay rights since 1924, by your reading. [/color]







[QUOTE]Yes, like I said, you are indeed blowing it out of proportion.
[/quote]

How is that any different than what I described?