Medieval Gays Got Unions

[MadelynIris]

You guys are funny to think that the only homosexuality that existed before 600AD was temple orgies and such.

Ok, so maybe caring, monogomous homosexual relationships may have started in 300AD? Splitting the difference.

No, I simply stated that I think homosexuality has existed in all of history and ancient times, and I don't buy the argument that people did not realize it existed or understood what it is/was or the nature of two people of the same sex loving each other as a man and a woman would.

[MadelynIris]

BTW, Irvine, this article supports what I would hope we can achieve one day. It is right in line with my hope for all people who want to join in a union.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
You guys are funny to think that the only homosexuality that existed before 600AD was temple orgies and such.

Ok, so maybe caring, monogomous homosexual relationships may have started in 300AD? Splitting the difference.

I don't think anyone is really stating that.

Originally posted by MadelynIris

No, I simply stated that I think homosexuality has existed in all of history and ancient times, and I don't buy the argument that people did not realize it existed or understood what it is/was or the nature of two people of the same sex loving each other as a man and a woman would.

You don't buy the argument that people did not realize it or understood? They hardly understand now???

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

You don't buy the argument that people did not realize it or understood? They hardly understand now???

Makes it even more ridiculous in my opinion.

[MadelynIris]

I mean what it is... Melon will argue that it was considered a psychosis, but I hardly think the greeks and romans thought that.

There were established relationships between the same sexes. I just don't get what is so hard to believe about that.

[Vincent Vega]

I think that this is just not what is referred to in the Bible.
I guess the argument is, that what was condemned in the Bible was the orgies and pederastry, but not a "normal" homosexual relationship.
But out of convenience people made those lines statements against homosexuality in all its forms.

[MadelynIris]

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

I'm not saying that wikipedia is the answer to all things, but man, over and over again they support the argument that homosexuality has been an accepted practice among many ancient cultures.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
I mean what it is... Melon will argue that it was considered a psychosis, but I hardly think the greeks and romans thought that.

There were established relationships between the same sexes. I just don't get what is so hard to believe about that.

I think it was the 70's where it was actually eliminated from physcology texts as a mental disorder. So to ignore that history has not looked kindly on homosexual relationships is crazy...

[MadelynIris]

No, not ignoring the history of the last 200 years for sure. But the last 3000? Seems like society has had stretches of acceptance, and that it's more of a recent aberration.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


No no no!!!! According to Melon and PhillyFan, it was much different back then. Homosexuality then, is not the same as it is now. They didn't have loving, caring, monogomous relationships back then.

Hogwash.

homosexuality has been around forever.

a gay identity is a modern concept.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
BTW, Irvine, this article supports what I would hope we can achieve one day. It is right in line with my hope for all people who want to join in a union.

given your track record, i remain suspicious of your motives, but we can also disagree here. i think there is worth in recognizing a union between two people who are romantically in love with one another and, more often than not, will seek to raise a family together. gay or straight shouldn't matter. it's the willingness to make a commitment to someone else, in front of friends and family and in the eyes of hte law, that should be celebrated.

should the protection of other relationships be explored? sure. but that's not my issue right now, and it's not one i'm interested in fighting for politically until my issue is settled. i'm open to discussion, but i dont' have the investment.

now, as for gays and history. it seems clear to me that homosexual people have been around forever, and the treatment of these people varied widely from culture to culture, epoch to epoch, and had more often than not to do with however the powers-that-be chose to interpret their various religious texts, once again underscoring the utter subjectivity of even reading "homosexuality" into certain Biblical passages. what is certain is the continued existence of same-sex love, and due to it's minority status, it's acceptance was predicated upon the majority's attitude towards it.

it seems clear that, in this article, we had some medieval societies who fully understood the immutability of same-sex love, and sought to incorporate these people into the folds of their respective societies. and, really, that's all gay people are asking for right now.

if you want to talk about temple prostitutes and pagan ceremonies as "homosexuality," you've succeeded in demonstrating a lack of understanding of what we mean when we say homosexual, a homosexual, homosexuality, and gay.

it's like sex and gender. sex is what your parts determine, gender is your identity. you can be a homosexual and not be gay. in fact, this is part of a big problem in black/latino communites where homophobia is so rampant, some men find being gay inconceivable despite their same-sex attraction. so they are homosexual, they can't change that. but they refuse to self-identify as a homosexual person, which we understand as a gay person. likewise, you could introduce another sex partner into your marriage. perhaps you and this man might perform sex acts on one another as your wife watches. those would be homosexual sex acts -- fellatio, anal sex -- but that does not make you a homosexual, let alone gay.

likewise, a homosexual act performed in the midst of some ceremony doesn't mean that the people involved were homosexual, let alone gay.

so, in sum, it's all a lot more complicated than we'd like to think.

i'm sure Melon can give us a more nuanced history, but you'll have to look at various societies and see that Thailand is very different from, say, Russia. why? not just the presence of the church, but specifically how the church chose to wield it's influence over society. look at Native American societies. there was a clear gay identity -- those who were refered to as having "two-spirits."

the point is, what we've come to understand as homosexuality has been around forever, but a gay identity, and more specifically, a gay identity that posits the same worth and value as a straight identity, is a modern concept, and what we now recognizes as the cultural semiotics of a gay identity -- shoes, clothes, words, unspoken messages, saying it without saying it, etc. -- probably originated in London in the late 19th century and becoming most visible with Oscar Wilde.

[MadelynIris]

Just sitting here watching the show "The New Adventures of the Old Christine" and she actually said "people that go to church hate gay people". CBS Primetime, and somehow, that categorization is ok.

hmmmmm

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Just sitting here watching the show "The New Adventures of the Old Christine" and she actually said "people that go to church hate gay people". CBS Primetime, and somehow, that categorization is ok.

hmmmmm

they did in southeastern Ohio in 2004.

i'm sorry, but it really is the right wing evangelical Christinan community that has placed opposition to gay people right alongside abortion as their all-encompassing social agenda. no one forced them to do that.

[MadelynIris]

if you want to talk about temple prostitutes and pagan ceremonies as "homosexuality," you've succeeded in demonstrating a lack of understanding of what we mean when we say homosexual, a homosexual, homosexuality, and gay

No, I don't want to talk about that. I haven't succeeded in demonstrating a lack of understanding. I don't believe that stuff has anything to do with homosexuality.

[MadelynIris]

given your track record, i remain suspicious of your motives

And likewise, I am suspicious of your motives!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


No, I don't want to talk about that. I haven't succeeded in demonstrating a lack of understanding. I don't believe that stuff has anything to do with homosexuality.

you're right. it doesn't.

so we can agree, then, that people who interpret Paul as condemning gay people as being immoral are totally full of shit, then? that Melon is right, those who read the Bible and see said passages from Romans and Leveticus are simply exercising their own prejudices?

good.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


And likewise, I am suspicious of your motives!

i'm not going to forget the bestiality/polygamy comparisons.

[MadelynIris]

oy -- years ago right? I admit extending it beyond 2 people gets tricky, and yeah, I don't exactly get how that would work. But there are definitely people who feel that to be inclusive of all relationship would include more than two people.

so we can agree, then, that people who interpret Paul as condemning gay people as being immoral are totally full of shit, then?

No. It's a valid argument, but not rock solid.

[MadelynIris]

Look, I dig the article. It makes sense to me.

Be suspicious all you want, but I've repeatedly posted a change of position for a couple of years now.

Do you treat most people who move from right to left on these issues like this? I feel like you are overly combative, but maybe its just the written word that's coming through like this.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Do you treat most people who move from right to left on these issues like this? I feel like you are overly combative, but maybe its just the written word that's coming through like this.

on this issue, i am more sensitive than most, and i get particularly prickly on the whole bestiality/man-on-dog arguments that were put forth a few years ago. it's so insulting, on so many levels, and i've put up with it so long, that it's hard not to get irritable.

i also know you're smart enough to argue with subtext, and to argue an opposite-seeming point of view in order to lead a discussion that you'll direct to reaffirm your orignial intent.

however, if you tell me you've sincerely moved forward, then i will sincerely believe you.