![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
herveusThank you, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cvirtue for mentioning this in FaceBook.
http://colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html presents a very interesting look at Christian history as it relates to same-sex unions. Formal named ceremonies for the unions are cited with dates ranging from 11th to 14th century, at the least. Other evidence is cited dating back farther. The article does not provide footnotes nor a bibliography, but many of the specific claims seem to provide enough information to identify the source material. To my eyes, it has the ring of being an honest report.
Taking the article at face value, the bottom line is that those who claim that the Christian concept of marriage has invariantly been one man and one woman always and ever are flat wrong. There's no way to sugar coat the conclusion. Now, that errancy is probably not willful ignorance so much as simple ignorance. I'd love to see this get wider coverage.
If you object to same-sex marriage, claiming a historical Christian basis for that objection holds no water. You need to come up with different arguments. It's not enough to simply say (as one articulate(?) witness at a hearing in DC said) "I object. I object. I object." (that following citing "If anyone has any reason why these people should not be joined in wedlock, let them speak now"). The prefatory remark implies that an actual reason will be elucidated.
(In the example above, the person actually uttered "I aject I aject I aject" -- rather inarticulate, but in character with the ranting tone of her "discourse")
cvirtue for mentioning this in FaceBook.http://colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html presents a very interesting look at Christian history as it relates to same-sex unions. Formal named ceremonies for the unions are cited with dates ranging from 11th to 14th century, at the least. Other evidence is cited dating back farther. The article does not provide footnotes nor a bibliography, but many of the specific claims seem to provide enough information to identify the source material. To my eyes, it has the ring of being an honest report.
Taking the article at face value, the bottom line is that those who claim that the Christian concept of marriage has invariantly been one man and one woman always and ever are flat wrong. There's no way to sugar coat the conclusion. Now, that errancy is probably not willful ignorance so much as simple ignorance. I'd love to see this get wider coverage.
If you object to same-sex marriage, claiming a historical Christian basis for that objection holds no water. You need to come up with different arguments. It's not enough to simply say (as one articulate(?) witness at a hearing in DC said) "I object. I object. I object." (that following citing "If anyone has any reason why these people should not be joined in wedlock, let them speak now"). The prefatory remark implies that an actual reason will be elucidated.
(In the example above, the person actually uttered "I aject I aject I aject" -- rather inarticulate, but in character with the ranting tone of her "discourse")
