Same Sex Unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history..........

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟18,944.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
History pretty much gets rid of the statements that Paul couldn't understand same sex unions, love since these things had been going on since the beginning of recorded history in many countries.

I listed snippets from many pages of the history of Homosexuality and Christianity, which shows that the authors of the Bible, that is inspired by God, would have understood love and marriage. They would have known and understood homosexual love, marriage and same sex unions since they were going on in their time and before. So using that reasoning doesn't really hold up, when looked at through the eyes of history.

Prior to the rise of Christianity, homosexuality had been, quite often, an acceptable expression of sexuality, in ancient Rome and ancient Greece. There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. [2] Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire.[citation needed] A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [3]
The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays and the rise of homophobia.[citation needed] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[4] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. [5] The Christian emperor Justinian (527-565) made homosexuals a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences." [6]

The surviving writings of the Church Fathers about homosexual behavior declare its sinful nature. [1]. In his fourth homily on Romans [2], St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:
But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece
In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of close same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty. (It is important to note, however, that marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their 30s commonly taking wives in their early teens.) It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[5]

After a long hiatus marked by censorship of homosexual themes,[15] modern historians picked up the thread, starting with Erich Bethe in 1907 and continuing with K. J. Dover and many others. These scholars have shown that same-sex relations were openly practiced, largely with official sanction, in many areas of life from the 7th century BC until the Roman era.

Empire

Though perhaps not the originator of the practice, the emperor Nero appears to have been the first Roman emperor to marry a male. According to Edward Gibbon, writing in 1776, of the first twelve emperors only Claudius was exclusively involved with women. All others took either boys or men as lovers.[1] The fact that Claudius had no male lovers actually drew criticism from Suetonius.

Moral opinions

With the arrival of Christianity, all kinds of same-sex love became increasingly taboo. In 390, the first law banning same-sex love was enacted, making it punishable by death.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

I used the above site because all the information was together, and don't believe that anyone who really wants to see if the information listed above is correct will have any problem doing that from other sites.
 

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
48
✟17,101.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Of course Paul would have known about same-sex unions. That's kinda the pro-gay point- there were several words around at the time that unambiguously referred to same-sex sex. Why, then, did Paul feel the need to invent one? Unless, of course, he was talking about a specific type of same-sex sexual behaviour; which no more forbids all types of same-sex sex than an injuction to a man not to visit female prostitutes forbids all manifestations of opposite-sex sex.
And that's assuming that 'arsenokoites' refers to same-sex sex in the first place- it's not a given.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟18,944.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course Paul would have known about same-sex unions. That's kinda the pro-gay point- there were several words around at the time that unambiguously referred to same-sex sex. Why, then, did Paul feel the need to invent one? Unless, of course, he was talking about a specific type of same-sex sexual behaviour; which no more forbids all types of same-sex sex than an injuction to a man not to visit female prostitutes forbids all manifestations of opposite-sex sex.
And that's assuming that 'arsenokoites' refers to same-sex sex in the first place- it's not a given.


Why would we need to assume, when he didn't use the word in Romans and yet said the same thing?

Also, we see how the church from the start knew it was a sin, if you read just the snippets, I posted. So for some scholars now to claim they know more then the people that lived during the time it was written, well there goes the mistranslation theory out the door.

Doesn't leave much to hold to, accept that God loves us all and whats all of us to be with Him. His love is so great that He even sent His son to take on our sins and to die the death we should have died. What wonderful love that is, and all we need to do is by faith accept that mercy and grace, repent of our sins and let the Lord lead us down the narrow path that led to Him.

Thank You Lord!!!! :prayer:
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would we need to assume, when he didn't use the word in Romans and yet said the same thing?

Two points.

1) If he did say the same thing in Romans without using the word, why did he need to invent it in the other two letters? It rather seems that we need to question the use even more if Romans says the same thing.

2) Does Romans, indeed say the same thing? In Romans 1:26-27, Paul is referencing a well-known Greek example of sin (or to use the language of the Greek philosophers something "against nature." ) The Greeks understood the sin to be hedonistic overindulgence, leading to what we today call addiction. The main feature is a loss of self control and giving in to an unreasoning passion.

The Greeks understood there to be five steps in the process. One of the alterations Paul made to the language of the original example was to insert the names of those five steps into the passage, thus cementing the fact that he knew what sin the example warned about, and that he agreed.

In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, Paul apparently could not find any existing Greek words to describe one of the sins, so he had to invent one (arsenokoitai). Conceding the claim that the similarity of the invented compound word to the LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13 suggests that the sin described by the invented word is the act forbidden by Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we still have to look at what, exactly Leviticus 18:22 forbids.

It forbids, not all homoerotic expression, but only one specific act. The command is given only to those who take one position in that act. The grammar suggests the other partner has not freely given full consent. The context suggests that the act is part of a pagan ritual.

So, the question "Does Romans 1:26-27 say the same thing as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? " becomes "Is hedonistic overindulgence and addiction the same thing as ritualistic rape? Do they become the same thing if both "partners" happen to be male?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WatersMoon110
Upvote 0

D.W.Washburn

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Mar 31, 2007
3,541
1,184
United States
✟24,908.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
History pretty much gets rid of the statements that Paul couldn't understand same sex unions, love since these things had been going on since the beginning of recorded history in many countries.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the point that you are arguing against.

The point that is more commonly made is that Paul did not understand homosexuality as an innate orientation.

I don't think my grandparents did either, for that matter.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟18,944.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Before Christianity came along, people in many cultures had polyamourous relations with members of both sexes.

Sexuality was something to celebrated, but today Christians make it seem like something to be ashamed of.


Today's Christians??????????????

Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc. are all types of sexual immorality, and have always been considered sins since before the beginning of Christianity.

When you say sexuality what are you referring to? Are you speaking of the biology, gender, orientation, human, male or female? Since I am not sure what you are meaning by sexuality it is impossible for me to commit, except to say that there is nothing wrong with sex when it is done in the way God planned.

Gen. 2:24-25
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

When we follow the design of God for man and woman then we aren't ashamed, but it has been along time since we followed His plan.

Gen 1:26-28
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Did God only plan on it being male and female partners until the earth was populated, and then He decided that it was ok for male and male or female and female partners? Please show me when that changed.

The Bible plainly says a man will leave his parents and take a wife, in both the OT and NT. We are also told how there were eunuchs in both the OT and the NT, and yet that isn't enough proof for some people.

When a man was given a help mate it was a woman, and this was done so he would have a comparable helper. So perfect a mate that after God made her He even brought her to him.

Gen 2:18-23
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟18,944.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the point that you are arguing against.

The point that is more commonly made is that Paul did not understand homosexuality as an innate orientation.

I don't think my grandparents did either, for that matter.

The points I have brought up were mentioned because they have been brought up in the past, it might have been before you came to the forum.

Which is different then male male marriages/unions back in those days how? They tell about long term relationships, and all the same stuff that we see now days so why would it not be understood, because they didn't use the word orientation?:doh:
 
Upvote 0

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,555
2,591
39
Arizona
✟66,649.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Before Christianity came along, people in many cultures had polyamourous relations with members of both sexes.

Sexuality was something to celebrated, but today Christians make it seem like something to be ashamed of.
Actually, polygamy is still the primary form of marriage in the various cultures of the world. Polyandry, by contrast, is rarer than monogamy.

And, of course, if we are talking about "Traditional Marriage", then we're really talking about arranged marriages, since that was the tradition in the West.

http://marriage.ygoy.com/history-of-arranged-marriage/
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

My ex went to a Christian college. The girl's dorm is jokingly referred to as "The Virgin Vault." I think there might have been a couple virgins in there...but most of the girls were sexually active...at best saving penetration for marriage.
 
Upvote 0

D.W.Washburn

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Mar 31, 2007
3,541
1,184
United States
✟24,908.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The points I have brought up were mentioned because they have been brought up in the past, it might have been before you came to the forum.

Which is different then male male marriages/unions back in those days how? They tell about long term relationships, and all the same stuff that we see now days so why would it not be understood, because they didn't use the word orientation?:doh:

It's not the word "orientation" it is the concept.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The only proof for actual unions in your OP is the Egyptian although that is debated historically also. I do not see any "proven" actual "unions"/marriages in ancient Greece rather than homosexuality been tolerated. Homosexuality been tolerated to allowing and having "marriage/unions" is a far a long shot. You will not find historical evidence to back you up with that....And I do not consider Wikepedia historical source finder... You will have to dig deeper to prove you point.

Furthermore if homesexual unions were not practiced in Ancient Athens we, Greeks, would be the first ones to publish them and the Homosexual movement would have been very eager to present them to the world... You think by now at least they would have brought them forward as evidence... But none is found as the Athenian society might have been tolerant with "arsenokoites" but nevertheless no such official "unions" have been found sanctioned by the reliious establishment of the times....
 
Upvote 0

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
48
✟17,101.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
The only proof for actual unions in your OP is the Egyptian although that is debated historically also. I do not see any "proven" actual "unions"/marriages in ancient Greece rather than homosexuality been tolerated. Homosexuality been tolerated to allowing and having "marriage/unions" is a far a long shot. You will not find historical evidence to back you up with that....And I do not consider Wikepedia historical source finder... You will have to dig deeper to prove you point.

Furthermore if homesexual unions were not practiced in Ancient Athens we, Greeks, would be the first ones to publish them and the Homosexual movement would have been very eager to present them to the world... You think by now at least they would have brought them forward as evidence... But none is found as the Athenian society might have been tolerant with "arsenokoites" but nevertheless no such official "unions" have been found sanctioned by the reliious establishment of the times....

The OP also mentions Constantius II declaring same-sex marriages illegal in the mid 300s- logically, that means that same-sex marriages were taking place up to that point. There's no point in rendering illegal something that isn't happening.

You are right in that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source in and of itself- however as Savedandhappy1 pointed out, the sources for the Wikipedia entires are available to be checked out.

"Furthermore if homesexual unions were not practiced in Ancient Athens we, Greeks, would be the first ones to publish them and the Homosexual movement would have been very eager to present them to the world"

I may be misunderstanding you, but is that 'not' meant to be there?
The main reason why gay rights movements do not use the Greek pederasy model of same-sex relationships is that, given that concepts such as 'age of consent' are now current, the idea of a man in his 30s taking a 14 or so year old boy as his lover (to whom he would act as a mentor and teach him the proper behaviour expected of a citizen) is rather icky.
Also, those relationships were intended, in the main, to be relatively short-term ones- once the boy was an adult the physical side of the relationship was meant to end. At least in Athens, IIRC; in other city-states the custom varied. Theban soldiers were meant to pair-bond for life (the idea being that someone would rather die in battle than disgrace themself before their beloved by showing cowardice)
The Ancient Greeks not only tolerated but actively encouraged same-sex relationships, but not in a way that matches the current Western model of a same-sex relationship looking for legal recognition via secular marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The main reason why gay rights movements do not use the Greek pederasy model of same-sex relationships is that, given that concepts such as 'age of consent' are now current, the idea of a man in his 30s taking a 14 or so year old boy as his lover (to whom he would act as a mentor and teach him the proper behaviour expected of a citizen) is rather icky.

That gave a big "grin" as I was reading it.. so I thought of replying to it... The mentor concept that you are talking about was NOT an "oficial"cohabitation or union. It was a temporary situation for reasons that you mentioned. I have specifically studied this subject and trully found no relation to any "MARRIAGE" or UNIONs.. .rather those boys were later married with children etc... I know todays standards it would seem paranoid and twisted to do such a thing but those days it was not considered that.. immoral. The matter fact is that although Athenian society was "very free" in its morality... still it was considered a "passing thing" something someone is doing while young and growing up you married... a woman to have kids. Homosexuality was not a "permanent" lifestyle. It is temporal and was consider part of one's 'rebellion' or a situation of convenience if the youth had no money to learn a profession... That is the reason it was based on "mentorship".... The main reason for these relationships was homosexuality rather situations of "convenience".... and temporary.

As you mentioned already in your post... Thus homosexual unions were not "official" not Marriages by far...and relationships not permanent.

You cannot claim then that there were marriages between homosexuals in antiquity....that was my point.

Wikepedia can not be your source... You need to bring forth actual books from reputable historians to be valid...

It seems very strange that just because something happened before most of the Bible was written in some way makes it ok to practice it? I don't understand this logic at all.

It cannot make it valid since no where in the history of at least the western civilization man married man and woman married woman to raise children...

If they can bring forth any proof I would be glad to get educated on the issue.....
 
Upvote 0

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
48
✟17,101.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
It seems very strange that just because something happened before most of the Bible was written in some way makes it ok to practice it? I don't understand this logic at all.

True, many things were standard practice once upon a time that are considered unaccaptable now.
The point in this case is that demonstrating that same-sex unions/marriages used to take place is a refutation to any claim that they never took place and therefore shouldn't now.

Generally, it's not an argument but a counter-argument.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
48
✟17,101.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
That gave a big "grin" as I was reading it.. so I thought of replying to it... The mentor concept that you are talking about was NOT an "oficial"cohabitation or union. It was a temporary situation for reasons that you mentioned. I have specifically studied this subject and trully found no relation to any "MARRIAGE" or UNIONs.. .rather those boys were later married with children etc... I know todays standards it would seem paranoid and twisted to do such a thing but those days it was not considered that.. immoral. The matter fact is that although Athenian society was "very free" in its morality... still it was considered a "passing thing" something someone is doing while young and growing up you married... a woman to have kids. Homosexuality was not a "permanent" lifestyle. It is temporal and was consider part of one's 'rebellion' or a situation of convenience if the youth had no money to learn a profession... That is the reason it was based on "mentorship".... The main reason for these relationships was homosexuality rather situations of "convenience".... and temporary.

As you mentioned already in your post... Thus homosexual unions were not "official" not Marriages by far...and relationships not permanent.

You are rather repeating what I said- the erastes/eromenos relationship was not a marriage in the modern understanding of the term- neither in the religious or the secular sense. But it wasn't a rebellion or an inexpensive form of apprenticeship- it was an important and necessary part of a youth's education. For attitudes towards this, and to same-sex relationships in general, look at Plato's Symposium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato) and Phaedrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(dialogue)
(Yes, I know, Wikipedia again, but it has an accurate synopsis of the dialogues, both of which I have read myself)

But, as we both agree, the Ancient Greek model does not have any bearing on the current same-sex marriage movement.

You cannot claim then that there were marriages between homosexuals in antiquity....that was my point.
Late antiquity I can- the Theodosian Code, section 9.8.3 outlawed same-sex marriages in the very strongest terms. If they weren't taking place, why outlaw them so vehemently?

Wikepedia can not be your source... You need to bring forth actual books from reputable historians to be valid...
I admire your scholastic exatitude, seriously. If I were to try to use Wikipedia as a source in a university level essay I would lose points. But the problem we have with on-line debates is that academic texts have rather small print runs, and those of us without access to large libraries are a bit stuck. And even if I had a given text to hand, there's no guarantee that anyone else on this subforum would also have access to the text and be able to verify it.
This is the innate problem with on-line debates- our source texts are generally all off-line.
At least Wikipedia has citations which can be checked, and isn't just a bald statement of fact/opinion.

It cannot make it valid since no where in the history of at least the western civilization man married man and woman married woman to raise children...
You're moving the goalposts here a bit- firstly by narrowing it down to western civilization which means that the evidence of same-sex long-term unions in Egypt, Africa and America can be ignored; and secondly by including the raising of children in the definition of marriage. Once upon a time, certainly, the generation of offspring was the main motivation for marriage and, true, for this reason same-sex officially sanctioned unions were not seen as relevant so were not very common.
But in this day and age many opposite-sex couples are not raising children- to argue that the raising of children is a sine qua non of marriage leads to the conclusion that infertile people should also not be permitted to marry. Which I have never seen anyone claim.

The purpose and meaning of marriage has changed over the course of history- women are no longer in effect sold as property and the main motivation has gone from producing the next generation to a life-long commitment based on love.
I'm not sure if 'argument from history' is as effective as an active argument as it is a counter-argument; but it can be used to argue that 'marriage as a union based on love and commitment' has a longer history among same-sex couples than it does among opposite-sex couples.
The reason being, if you eliminate 'bride price' and 'children' from the reasons why same-sex couples got married before the Theodosian Code banned it, and work on the principle that, since same-sex brothels were still being taxed after the Code it was perfectly possible for men with same-sex desire to, ahem, 'get their ends away', plus of course there's no reason to think that it would be necessary to have to pay for it in the first place, the reasons remaining for them to get married would boil down to 'love and commitment'.


If they can bring forth any proof I would be glad to get educated on the issue.....
The Theodosian Code. Any thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You're moving the goalposts here a bit- firstly by narrowing it down to western civilization which means that the evidence of same-sex long-term unions in Egypt, Africa and America can be ignored; and secondly by including the raising of children in the definition of marriage


Marriage includes children. It comes as a package...If you disagree it is like denying the homosexual couples their rights to adopt or bear children.
Do you see the problem now.. .You cannot object one and accept the other... You have to agree that marriage includes the possibility of parenthood.... Just because the couples (homosexual) of antiquity do not have children and it is hard to find out if they did that does not "exclude" them... You are narrowing down the subject to your advantage.. You have to be fair across the board...sorry.



But in this day and age many opposite-sex couples are not raising children- to argue that the raising of children is a sine qua non of marriage leads to the conclusion that infertile people should also not be permitted to marry. Which I have never seen anyone claim.

You are mixing up historical perspectives here and also making an argument that I never made... I am not presenting marriage and children as an "obstacle" to our argument rahter I am defining what marriage sociologically does. It is within marriage than parenthood takes place... That is nothing to argue about isoloating marriage as a function for "companionship" would be actually the minority cases.. so why would I want to talk about the minority and their practices? With birth control almost absent I am not sure there was such a "minority" to start off with... You are working yourself into a straw man here sorry...
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Late antiquity I can- the Theodosian Code, section 9.8.3 outlawed same-sex marriages in the very strongest terms. If they weren't taking place, why outlaw them so vehemently?

Probably the Gnostics practiced a kind of ritual cultic unions that they were looking to be "validated" by the state... I have to look into it defenately worth the while...


I'm not sure if 'argument from history' is as effective as an active argument as it is a counter-argument; but it can be used to argue that 'marriage as a union based on love and commitment' has a longer history among same-sex couples than it does among opposite-sex couples.

No proof that same sex unions lasted longer ...in history anywhere except in myth... Those stories can be just as serving mythology as the actual myths i.e.Sapho...will be one of them. This is not a "historical argument" actually I am personally concerned with the idea that this IS the first time in human history that such union that COULD bear children is taking place NOW... and one has any reason to wonder why... But that is not what I am concerned about rather finding out What...was taking place.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Late antiquity I can- the Theodosian Code, section 9.8.3 outlawed same-sex marriages in the very strongest terms. If they weren't taking place, why outlaw them so vehemently?

Probably the Gnostics practiced a kind of ritual cultic unions that they were looking to be "validated" by the state... I have to look into it defenately worth the while...


I'm not sure if 'argument from history' is as effective as an active argument as it is a counter-argument; but it can be used to argue that 'marriage as a union based on love and commitment' has a longer history among same-sex couples than it does among opposite-sex couples.

No proof that same sex unions lasted longer ...in history anywhere except in myth... Those stories can be just as serving mythology as the actual myths i.e.Sapho...will be one of them. This is not a "historical argument" actually I am personally concerned with the idea that this IS the first time in human history that such union that COULD bear children is taking place NOW... and one has any reason to wonder why... But that is not what I am concerned about rather finding out What...was taking place.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
48
✟17,101.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Marriage includes children. It comes as a package...If you disagree it is like denying the homosexual couples their rights to adopt or bear children.
Do you see the problem now.. .You cannot object one and accept the other... You have to agree that marriage includes the possibility of parenthood.... Just because the couples (homosexual) of antiquity do not have children and it is hard to find out if they did that does not "exclude" them... You are narrowing down the subject to your advantage.. You have to be fair across the board...sorry.

You are mixing up historical perspectives here and also making an argument that I never made... I am not presenting marriage and children as an "obstacle" to our argument rahter I am defining what marriage sociologically does. It is within marriage than parenthood takes place... That is nothing to argue about isoloating marriage as a function for "companionship" would be actually the minority cases.. so why would I want to talk about the minority and their practices? With birth control almost absent I am not sure there was such a "minority" to start off with... You are working yourself into a straw man here sorry...

I think that somewhere along the line we've started talking at cross-purposes....

To clarify my stance- marriage has for a large part of its history been a state- or religion-sanctified institution within which the bearing of children has been legitimised.
Marriage between a man and a woman certainly includes the possibility of children- as does sex outside of marriage. But it's not a given. Even without any birth control methods, some couples are simply not able to procreate together. Low sperm count, or improperly formed ovaries, or similar.

Stating that marriage does not depend on the production of children is NOT the same thing as saying that same-sex couples do not or should not have the right to adopt or bear their own children. I have always been a big flagwaver for same-sex secular marriage for just that reason- when there are children as part of the family it makes a lot of potentially awkward legal matters much simpler. I am very happy, BTW, to let religions sort out for themselves what they want to accept as a legitimate religious marriage- I just firmly believe that a religious view should not be used as a basis for secular law. But to get back on track....

When one is looking at what "what marriage sociologically does" one has to consider exactly what society one is looking at.
And again- parenthood does not only take place within marriage. It's generally a cultural ideal, true, but that's not quite the same thing.

Marriage has a lot of roles, and one of them is companionship.
If you look at Genesis (and please note that I'm a pagan, and so Genesis carries the same weight with me as, say, the story of Callisto that I mentioned on your other thread!) Adam and Eve were married before the expulsion from Eden and before there was any mention of their having children- Cain and Abel, etc, were only conceived after they were kicked out. So marriage was conceived of originally as for companionship, with procreation coming later. If one wants to take a literal view of the OT.

Could you define what sort of strawman you think I'm heading towards. please? It's entirely probable that I'm jumping the gun a bit and assuming that you're holding views which, in fact, you aren't- most Christians with whom I've been debating on this subforum tend to use the 'There's no procreation, so it's not marriage' argument. That's why I went for the 'Opposite-sex married couples sometimes don't have children either, so are they not married?' response.
But I note that you're Greek Orthodox, and I'm not at all familiar with that doctrine.
If I've mis-interpreted you, I do apologise.
And if you have any more questions about my position, please ask and I'll elaborate.
 
Upvote 0