Interesting article on the early church and marriage

[theonedru]

Had this article emailed to me today, quite interesting to say the least and opens a whole facet to explore

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

basically same article but with picture of the icon
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=221x128714

sheds a whole new light on the marriage debate.

[habsheaven]

It will simply be dismissed or ignored by those that oppose gay marriage.

[Star_Cards]

very interesting. My opinion is that religious views have adapted due to man's motives at any given time. I can see it being possible that homosexuality is a more recent no-no when it comes to christianity. I find it completely plausible that homosexuality wasn't as shunned as it is today within christianity.

[theonedru]

It will simply be dismissed or ignored by those that oppose gay marriage.

Well John Boswell was the Chairman of Yale University’s history department. So it would be hard for anyone here to match wits with such an luminary, let alone actually discredit him.

[duane1969]

I won't dismiss it, but I will question the validity of it. It is an op-ed peice that references an original article that doesn't seem to exists (at least the provided link doesn't work).

So before I rush headlong into believing everything the peice says I would need to see some verifiable proof.

[duane1969]

Well John Boswell was the Chairman of Yale University’s history department. So it would be hard for anyone here to match wits with such an luminary, let alone actually discredit him.

In reading about this I discovered a few things.

1) Boswell's "position" is based on his own translation of ancient texts. So yes, it would be hard to contradict him since his proof is his own interpretation of the texts. "I am right because I say I am right" is hardly proof that he is right.

This website shows that Boswell's interpretation of the text is considerably different from that of other scholars who speak the language. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp

2) What he interprets as a "same-sex marriage" is actually an adelphopoiia ceremony. For those who do not know what adelphopoiia is, it is "blood brothers". Quite simply, two men swearing their allegiance to help each other in times of need. This does not make them gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

While I may not be smart enough to match wits with him, it seems that there is some pretty legitimate question as to the validity or legitimacy of his position.