Did the Church once condone gay marriage?

Cloud9 · #1 03-04-2004, 07:30 PM

I'm not sure how reliable this source is, I'm hoping the journalists can shed some light on that(it's from 1998 so the information could be outdated). If it is, it would be a huge dent in the arguments against gay marriage within religious groups. If anyone has more current information on the subject, please contribute.

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salam...times/opt3.htm

When marriage between
gays was by rite

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.

Love_Spell_6 · #2 03-05-2004, 12:52 PM

Didnt even read your source...because I already got one..THE BIBLE!! If u want to know if gay marriage was ever condoned...read about Soddom and Gomorrah..and the other scriptures where the Bible refers to a man lying down with another man. Is this really even a point of contention?

Cloud9 · #3 03-05-2004, 01:48 PM

I suppose then you also agree with the with slavery, which the Bible condones, and I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends because the Bible clearly decrees that wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread must be punished by stoning. And of course you must lock yourself away in a closet during your period, lest a man touch you.

People need to stop spitting out ideas that were spoon fed to them and start thinking for themselves.

Rudey · #4 03-05-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
I suppose then you also agree with the with slavery, which the Bible condones, and I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends because the Bible clearly decrees that wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread must be punished by stoning. And of course you must lock yourself away in a closet during your period, lest a man touch you.

People need to stop spitting out ideas that were spoon fed to them and start thinking for themselves.

People need to stop spoon feeding others (and by people I mean you).

The matter of mixing fabrics is that of wool and cotton:

"Keep My decrees: ... Do not wear a garment that contains Sha'atnez" (a forbidden mixture of fabrics). [Lev. 19:19]

The prohibition of sha'atnez is more clearly expressed later on in parashat Ki Tetze: "Do not wear Sha'atnez - wool and linen together." [Deut. 22:11]

The high priest (Cohen Gadol) was allowed to however. The reasons for this are based mostly in faith. Actually most of the bible is faith (Chok) and not logic. The bit of logic that can be found is the prevention of animal cruelty. In the case of the high priest, it's considered animals contributing to the overall welfare of the universe.

About slavery, again you spew garbage. Slavery then is not the same as that of the cotton and sugar workers. The plagues upon Egypt illustrate the feeling G-d possessed towards the more sinister form of slavery.

On women's periods, what you are being stupid about is the act of Niddah. It is an issue involving mikvah's and ritual purifications, eliminations of disorder, as well as dealing with home and family. They are not health or hygiene issues.

All these acts are practiced by many Jews. I don't know if any Christians practice them. The fact that you brought them up shows your ignorance. Those who believe can think on their own. They can expand on the philosophies of people like Rashi.

In fact, it is you who is spoon fed. Did you read these scriptures or spew out something else someone told you or you read in some retarded newsletter? And now you're trying to spoonfeed it to someone else? It's funny how you come on acting like you want to promote tolerance and it's intolerance that comes across coupled with the lack of intelligence and the incapacity to read or research.

-Rudey
--I love making people feel dumb.

Cloud9 · #5 03-05-2004, 02:55 PM

YAWN...more angry little boy talk...do you have anything to say about the original article?

Rudey · #6 03-05-2004, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
YAWN...more angry little boy talk...do you have anything to say about the original article?

I see you can't respond. So you respond with a yawn? Sorta like someone with down syndrome after being explained the difference between red and blue.

I don't care what the Church did. And the source of your article makes it a joke.

-Rudey
--And then saying I'm angry is an even bigger joke.

Cloud9 · #7 03-05-2004, 04:25 PM

I see you can't respond about the ideas mentioned in the article. So you respond with the same old "me smart you stupid" comment you give everyone. Boring.

YAAAAAAWWWNNN

Rudey · #8 03-05-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
I see you can't respond about the ideas mentioned in the article. So you respond with the same old "me smart you stupid" comment you give everyone. Boring.

YAAAAAAWWWNNN

OK let me get this straight.

1. You post that someone is spoonfed if they accept the bible. You throw in examples that are wrong that you don't know about and were spoonfed to you.

2. I post about all those aspects of the bible that you chose to bring up. Forget about being insulting and ignorant - I just chose to address that you knew nothing about them after being spoonfed them.

3. You "Yawn" and say I responded with the "same old me smart you stupid" comment.

OK.

-Rudey
--You know sometimes I feel bad when I don't understand something at work and then I read posts by people like you and cheer right on up.

Cloud9 · #9 03-05-2004, 04:52 PM

Wow, can't stay away, can you? Your job must be sooooo demanding, it's a wonder that you can be so absorbed in posting on a subject that on which you have nothing relevant to say, but instead make incorrect statements about a tangent post and then get angry when no one cares.

Anyways, if anyone actually has something to say about the original post, I'm interested to hear it.

Lady Pi Phi · #10 03-05-2004, 05:01 PM

While I disagree with the church on its teachings on homosexuality. I don't believe that this statue is unequivocal proof that the church once condoned homosexuality/gay marriage.
I think a lot of what was said in the article , like the quote from Serverus of Antioch and that St. Serge being described as a "sweet companion and lover" can be taken out of context.
Perhaps these two were the clostest of friends and loved each other very much, platonically that is. This doesn't prove that there was any sort of sexual/romantic relation between the 2.
It would be interesting to read further historical documents on it though to find out what their relationship was like.
If it were to be used in an argument against the churches stance on homosexuality I can't see it as being very effective.

#11 03-05-2004, 05:04 PM

It seems quite a large jump to take a painting of two men standing in a vaguely wedding-like setting, made by someone who was not affiliated with the church, to saying that this means that the Church once condoned gay marriage. This is to me like saying that dogs do in fact know how to play poker, because they are depicted so in a famous painting.

(and no, before anybody reads anything into anything, I'm not saying that homosexuals are dogs and a marriage is a hand of poker

)

I read the article, and it didn't sell me whatsoever. The examples the author provided sound more like business partnerships than what we would consider modern-day marriage. Yes, marriage is different now than what it was 200 years ago (used to be much more about politics and wealth rather than touchy-feely-love), but, it also used to be much more heavily about procreation than it is now. Today, it's not uncommon for a couple to plan not to have any children. A few hundred years ago, it was grounds for divorce (or just killing off your wife, ala King Henry XIII)

Sorry this is getting so wordy, but basically.... I think this guy is stretching to find something he wants to believe.

Lady Pi Phi · #12 03-05-2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginger
... I think this guy is stretching to find something he wants to believe.

I absolutely agree with you.

preciousjeni · #13 03-05-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
I suppose then you also agree with the with slavery, which the Bible condones

Sorry, you touched on something that bothers me a lot. The Bible doesn't condone slavery. It gives a guideline by which humankind should live, regardless of the state or station of life. There are Biblical "rules" about how a slave should act toward the master and vice versa. Nowhere does it say that God or Jesus told anyone it's ok to enslave people.

Cloud9 · #14 03-05-2004, 06:11 PM

Ok, I didn't want to swerve onto this subject, but fine, since you ask, here it is:

Leviticus 25
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

That's a quote from the bible. It is now outdated and known to be wrong, in the same way as the homosexual reference is. The bible says alot of things, and not all of them are "right" or relevant in today's world.

preciousjeni · #15 03-05-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cloud9
Ok, I didn't want to swerve onto this subject, but fine, since you ask, here it is:

Leviticus 25
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

That's a quote from the bible. It is now outdated and known to be wrong, in the same way as the homosexual reference is. The bible says alot of things, and not all of them are "right" or relevant in today's world.

You're talking about a statement made by the government of the time not by God. I don't believe that anyone ever said that the humans recorded in the Bible were infallible. Or maybe I'm wrong?