(Prolifer)ations 8-12-10
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Flash Point examines the latest sound bite from actress Jennifer Aniston, who, in promoting her upcoming movie, stated women no longer need men to bear and raise children, thanks to artificial insemination.
- LiveAction writes the study of preborn fetal development provides a strong case for their protection, if we could get beyond “irrational emotions and personal philosophies” that surround their demise.
- Real Choice outlines the story of Ying Chen, 30, who died a year ago from complications suffered during an abortion performed by troubled abortionist Andrew Rutland of CA. The cause of death has been changed from accidental to homicide. The case will be reviewed by the CA Medical Board in 2011 along with other charges against him.
- Pro Life Action League is optimistic that new Catholic Campaign for Human Development director, Rey Flores, will correct past abuses and dubious funding within the organization. In the past, the CCHD has come under fire for funding abortion, contraception, same-sex “marriage,” and legalized prostitution. Recently, the group has given grants toward sidewalk counseling, PRCs, and abstinence education.
- Fr. Frank Pavone reminds us to talk about positive pro-life news. One such example: the Russian Federation delegation at a UN meeting highlighted a 2 year program to “prevent abortion and the protection of life,” reporting the birth rate is now exceeding the abortion rate for the first time in decades.
Aug.12, 2010 4:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Could we please not have the editorial quotes around “marriage”? Whether you approve of it or not, there are places where a marriage between a same-sex couple is as legally valid as the marriage between a man and a woman.
CCHD should talk to Notre Dame – http://www.FreeTheND88.org
Are you saying that Aniston should have an abortion if she gets pregnant?
Yes, cranium, that’s EXACTLY what she’s saying. [/sarcasm]
Thanks Marauder, I thought so.
Blue is a word that describes a color. Blue is not pink. Yellow is not blue. Marriage is a word that means something. If same-sex couples want all the bells and whistles, then pick a new word. Don’t tell us that blue is yellow and call us homophobes if we don’t agree. I think if people want to leave their property to their lovers, have them make medical and financial decisions, that’s all fine. Have a big party, wear fancy clothes, put rings on your fingers. But don’t F with language. That’s the slippery slope the pro-so-called-choice advocates have been doing. And don’t use judicial activism: it destroys the democratic process.
That being said, I’m very sad for Jennifer Aniston. She has had a hard time in the romance department, and I don’t blame her for her feelings. But I can’t imagine life without my dad. He’s not perfect, but he can’t be replaced or pushed aside.
Marriage is the same ‘color’ whether it is between two men, two women or a man and a woman ninek.
Marriage is a word that means something. It means two people love each other, wish to make a commitment, and want the world to witness that love and commitment.
Hell no cranium. “Marriage” actually means the physical, anatomical, physiological, hormonal, emotional, mental and spiritual joining of two distinctly different human beings with two distinctly different REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS and sex organs a male penis and a female vagina that have the purpose and function of uniting to become “one” with each other. BTW, they actually have the possible potential to create a whole different human being when they come together, called a baby. No amount of creative implements, sex toys, other parts of the anatomy, contortions abnormal stretching and physical or mental gymnastics will make 2 men or two women physiologically, anatomically, hormonally emotionally, mentally and spiritually become ” married”.
Anatomy lesson 101. Human beings have systems of their bodies. We have a circulatory system, respiratory system, digestive system, endocrine system, lymphatic system, skeletal system, muscular system, nervous system and a REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM which are distinctly different and are called A MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM OR A FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM THAT ARE MEANT TO UNITE TO REPRODUCE A BABY. No amount of political correctness or even homosexual judge’s ruling will make it ”marriage” cannot happen it is physiologically and anatomically impossible. Just like the plumber says “ Maam two, female fittings or two male fittings won’t fit got to have a male fitting with a female fitting”. Not about hate, not about homophobia, not about civil rights, not about being a bigot, it’s about the truth and medical facts. Read Dr. John Diggs article “The Health Risks of Gay Sex”, just medical facts with an extensive number (about 10 pages) of research works cited. If you are interested I will post the link. Got to go.
Prolifer L, do you have evidence to support your claim? I mean real and independant evidence. Because I believe your statement is fundamentally incorrect.
cranium, I have a better idea. Why don’t you provide YOUR evidence for your assertion. So far, unlike the others, you haven’t provided an logical argument of any kind in favor of your view, much less evidence.
But you would know that because of your big . . . oh wait a minute, your handle is meant to be ironic, right?
cranium you have got to be kidding right, research for how human reproductive systems work and their function, purpose and how they work in “marriage”. Where did you come up with your handle? I have to go will be gone for most of the day I will be back later. Maybe some other prolifers can post some links to research like Dr. John Diggs “The Health Risk of Gay Sex” and the FDA link for why the FDA will NOT accept male blood donors who have ever had sex with another man. Got to go.
Marriage is a joining of two families. Even though a gay couple may live together, have a big party, have all their friends and family witness, etc. their families will not see themselves as linked. The mother of a gay women does not refer to her daughter’s lover as her own daughter-in-law. Generally, she would say, “My daughter’s partner” or some other phrase. Even though other cultures have sometimes been more gay-centric than others, no where in all of human history have gay lovers been included in anyone’s geneology. Go pick up a history book (you know those things we used before Wikipedia, they have the paper pages in them) and look up the family trees of Roman emperors, Egyptians, Byzantines, etc. etc. See any gay lovers in those family trees? Nope, guess not. Yes gay people have a lot of love for each other, no one doubts or disputes that, but it is not marriage. Stop twisting language, it is double plus ungood!!
On the note about Jennifer Aniston, there is a new Yahoo article about how those who have been conceived by artificial insemination being more depressed, searching for their fathers. They’re looking for their rights in the whole situation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100815/ap_on_re_us/us_sperm_donor_dads
Apparently men are needed!
I didn’t need the anatomy lesson thanks. My sexual education wasn’t limited or distorted by religious interference.
I wasn’t referring to procreation, that works the same way whether in or out of marriage. And marriage is about a lot more than that.
I was referring to the origins and history of ‘marriage’. It did not originate out of ‘love’ and it has not consistently precluded same-sex couples. These are both facts.
Lori, there was no evidence provided by the others, merely subjective viewpoints.
I was referring to the origins and history of ‘marriage’. It did not originate out of ‘love’ and it has not consistently precluded same-sex couples. These are both facts.
Please give me one shred of evidence that this is a fact. What societies have recognized same-sex relationships as marriage?
(By the way, I wasn’t referring to anything sexual, as you seem to think. I was referring to the size of your “cranium” – that is your handle, remember? – which, believe me, is not nearly as big as you seem to think it is).
Lori, I had no thought other than that you were referring to my ‘cranium’, I don’t know where you got the idea that I may have thought you were making any sexual references.
Marriage originated to protect land, wealth and property. Look up any <i>independent</i> source and you will see that that is the case.
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:EN-AU;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs – http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties. – http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Tracing matrimony’s path from ancient times (when some cultures lacked a word for “love” and the majority of pairings were attempts to seize land or family names) – In ancient Rome, no distinction was made between cohabitation and marriage; during the Middle Ages, marriage was regarded less as a bond of love than as a ” ‘career’ decision”; in the Victorian era, the increasingly important idea of true love “undermined the gender hierarchy of the home” (in the past, men—rulers of the household—were encouraged to punish insufficiently obedient wives). Coontz explains marriage as a way of ensuring a domestic labor force, as a political tool and as a flexible reflection of changing social standards and desires. – http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-Obedience-Intimacy-Conquered/dp/B000EUKR2C
Early marriage was borne of ancient societies’ need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines – http://uktv.co.uk/yesterday/item/aid/581541
and even wikipedia:
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi’s Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man’s need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. “In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
And there are numerous sources referring to homosexual marriages taking place at various times in various cultures.
Sincere apologies for the great lump of gobbledygook, I don’t know why that happened.
Here’s a good basic article on homosexual relationships through history.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp
Cranium, I specifically asked you for evidence of same-sex marriages. I know pretty well that the history of marriage has not always included love.
However, it’s interesting that you only provided me with one link to “same-sex marriages” and it’s a mess. The author of the article himself admits that there is little proof or evidence of homosexual marriages taking place in history. It’s mainly about homosexual relationships. There is also a difference between private ceremonies and something that would have been recognized as marriage by state and society. Not much evidence even of the private ones is cited (if the things cited without sources are even evidence).
There was indeed widespread tolerance of homosexual relationships (or rather pederasty) in ancient Greece, but no one ever confused them with marriage. Plato himself called homosexual relationships “unnatural” (Phaedrus).
The mention of John Boswell doesn’t bode well for your case; himself homosexual, he wrote a foolish book on supposed homosexual marriages in medieval Europe a few years ago, and it has been pretty thoroughly discredited in the academic community. He cited his sources incorrectly, provided faulty translations, and all sorts of tendentious reasoning. What he referred to as marriage ceremonies were actually ceremonies cementing a “spiritual fraternity” among friends. (The ceremony is still practiced in the Orthodox Church to this day). Boswell tried desperately to prove that “brother” is the same thing as “homosexual lover,” but to no avail.
Bet you didn’t know that I have a Ph.D in medieval history! Better be careful in the future about who you tangle with — and don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
And by the way, if you weren’t making any sexual references, what is all this nonsense you wrote about? “I didn’t need the anatomy lessons, thanks My sexual education wasn’t limited or distorted by religious interference.” Since my reference was clearly to your ran, it’s clear that you misunderstood me. Either that, or you just write in complete non-sequiturs.
Lori,
Are you a prof somewhere by any chance?
Hi Bobby,
No, I’m an “independent scholar.” Actually I’m a freelance writer and translator, and also have a (very) small publishing company of my own. My Ph.D. is from Fordham University.
Oh, and my next-to-last sentence above should read “clearly to your brain.”
Evidently there’s a time limit on editing your post??
Well, at least the editing function works now!
Cool, Lori!
(blush) Thanks!
Hi Lori, I shall find the references for you. They do exist, I have seen them. And they are independent.
My comment about anatomy lessons was in response to Prolifer L’s little diatribe, you’re not the only one who deserves a response.
No, I didn’t know you have a Ph.D in medieval history. I don’t really care either. You don’t have ownership of all the knowledge that is available and you also interpret things with a faith-based bias. I have access to all the resources that you do. And the ‘don’t believe everything you read’ principle applies to you as well. There is a lot more to history than just the medieval period.
Lori, I have disregarded anything with a hint of Boswell to it as you have claimed his work is discredited (not that good Jesuit education is it?) – although his work seems to be undergoing a bit of redemption nowadays. And it wasn’t quite as simple as <i>Boswell tried desperately to prove that “brother” is the same thing as “homosexual lover,”</i>now was it.
http://www.t-vox.org/index.php?title=Homosexual
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/print.cfm?articleid=25
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp
http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
And if you want to say ‘but they weren’t marriages as we know them’, let me ask you this question posed elsewhere:
Cranium,
Well, so far you’ve cited Wikipedia, an apparent Wikipedia clone, the same biased website you cited before, and another article without footnotes or references of any kind. I wouldn’t exactly call that scholarship. And there is nothing new in any of these sites.
Did I ever make any argument based on religion? I was simply questioning your facts and the sources for them, based on scholarly grounds, which are the same whether you accept any religion or not. And it doesn’t do a heck of a lot of good to complain about me being biased when so many of your sources are blatant pro-homosexual propaganda.
As for your quoted question, you did notice, didn’t you, that each of the cases cited was that of man-woman marriage? In each and every one of its publicly recognized forms throughout history, marriage has been a man-woman proposition.
Yes, there have been changes and evolutions in marriage, not all of them for the good. But human beings as a whole do have a way of instinctively knowing what is not good and working to change it. This is our built-in knowledge of what is known as natural law.
When it was recognized that polygamy was disadvantageous to women, for instance, the U.S. outlawed polygamy as practiced by Mormons. Women have fought for and won great equality in marriage. Change in marriage does not invalidate the idea of marriage.
You may call me biased here, but this is a genuine fact: one of the major factors that has improved marriage historically have been the teachings of Christ and the Christian Church. Jesus recognized that woman were not to be simply discarded by their husbands, which was the common Mosaic teaching.
During the Middle Ages, from around the twelfth century on, it was the Catholic Church’s growing teachings on canon law that helped clamp down on arranged marriages for money, because canonists taught that it was the consent of the married pair that was all important in making a valid marriage, not the consent or wishes of their parents. And so on.
I could provide citations from all this from sources much better than Wikipedia, but I have a feeling it would all be wasted on you.
Rubbish! They are not based on pro-homosexual propaganda. They are independent peer-reviewed sources. Wikipedia was only the last source I quoted. I also found many articles by Ph.D’s which supported the truth that homosexual marriages have at times and in various cultures, been considered as normal as heterosexual marriages. It’s not like I was citing sources from places like Biola now was it?
Nor was I addressing the topic from a religious or anti-religious viewpoint. Simple historical reality. The quote I quoted demonstrates that huge changes in what was and wasn’t accepted for marriage have occurred. Homosexual marriage is already taking place so it could easily be added to the list.
There is no complete common <i>built-in knowledge of what is known as natural law</i>. It varies from person to person, culture to culture and era to era.
And then you start with the Jesus and Christianity bit. A mere blip in the history and variances of marriage over time. And the Catholic Church only had influence in it’s domain, which was far from the majority of the world.
The evidence backs my statement that ‘marriage has not consistently precluded same-sex couples’. It still stands.
Unless you are able to provide sources demonstrating that homosexual marriages have <i>never</i> been as accepted as heterosexual marriages in various societies and at various times? Like they are in some countries now and will soon be in America as well.
Cranium, every time I asked you for a scholarly source you give me an internet summary, not the actual article. Does it surprise you that I would keep asking for the actual scholarly article? And since one of the internet sites specifically denounces Proposition 8, — well, you tell me. In addition, the fact that there are some scholars who try to make the case for the historical existence of homosexual marriage doesn’t mean they have made it. Boswell is a perfect example of this.
I don’t think it’s up to me to prove that homosexual marriages have never been as accepted as heterosexual ones in society. I think it’s up to you to prove they have. Merely asserting it is not enough. New and unheard of theses in any science or discipline have to be proved. So far you are doing a poor job.
By the way, sorry I misunderstood you about the anatomy comment. But I might point out that if you want to answer someone like Prolifer L, then use that person’s name. It will save a lot of confusion.
And the information from the internet sources comes from where? Oh that’s right, the actual books and articles concerning the topic.
The reality is, homosexual marriages have at different times, and in different cultures, been as accepted as heterosexual marriages. It is happening now. And you are unable to refute this.
I would have thought my first few sentences in response to Prolifer L made it pretty obvious what I was responding to. But then again, perhaps I shouldn’t assume that people can always discern and take in information when it is supplied.
Then cite the original books please. You’ve got them in your possession, right? Because you’ve read them all, right? Right.
Lori, you are sounding more childish and defensive with each comment.
Can you, or can you not, academically refute that homosexual marriages have been accepted within certain cultures at certain times?
I have not seen one shred of evidence from you, just your own ‘belief’, nit-picking and circuitous avoidance of the inestimable evidence that acceptance has occurred. And is talking place <i>now</i>.
Actually Lori, it was Prolifer L. who first claimed that marriage was only between people of two genders, without any evidence, logic, references or sources.
To which I responded ‘do you have evidence to support your claim? I mean real and independent evidence. Because I believe your statement is fundamentally incorrect’.
Then, rather than leave Prolifer L. to respond appropriately, as they had made the initial assertion, you waded in and inverted protocol by demanding that I supply evidence. Academically dishonest. If someone holds up an orange and says ‘this is blue’, the onus is on them to prove so if someone says ‘no its not’.
But I supplied sources anyway. Even though you have attempted to deride them, the bottom line is that no-one has supplied so much as a skerrick of evidence to support Prolifer L.’s initial claim. At all.
No it”s not academically dishonest to demand that someone provide evidence for some new and startling claim. History wasn’t invented ten years ago, you know. What historical evidence exists is pretty well known. Historians always have have always understood the history of marriage as being the history of a man-woman institution, and if someone wants to upset the applecart, it’s up to them to supply the evidence and for the historical community to judge. Southern Civil Wart historians who wanted to claim that blacks fared well under slavery had to supply their evidence (which was often shot down by other historians). Historians like Boswell make new and startling claims that are often shot down. What you cannot do is find some isolated person or persons who makes a new claim and then proclaim a new understanding of history based on that. I don’t see any historical consensus in favor of your claims. Prolifer L, on the other hand, was citing the consensus and doesn’t really need to prove anything. Get it now?
1/ it is not a new and startling claim, what a feeble strawman!
2/ history is as old as, well…history! And it has provided details of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
3/ historians have NOT always understood the history of marriage as man/woman. That’s why the facts I have cited are out there.
4/ you are the one upsetting the applecart by refusing to acknowledge that amongst the historical texts there is evidence that homosexual marriages took place – you have taken a new position, going against the consensus.
5/ if ‘Southern Civil Wart historians who wanted to claim that blacks fared well under slavery had to supply their evidence’ – then Prolifer L. needs to provide evidence that marriage only occurs between mixed genders
6/ christians, as a minority in the world, particularly those who claim nothing outside of scripture or their world view is true, are the ‘isolated person or persons’ who need to justify their claims
7/ you don’t see any historical consensus because you haven’t looked – and you refuse to. You studied Medieval history, there’s a whole lot more. And remind me, where did you study it? And when did you study it?
8/ Prolifer L. was a long way from citing the consensus, so he/she does need to prove something. As do you. Citing anatomy and scripture does not amount to an evidential case for anything.
Do you understand yet? Or are you going to keep trolling around in circles as an attempt at intellectual distraction while NO-ONE provides any evidence that homosexual marriages weren’t considered acceptable at various times in various cultures. Just like is happening in the world today.
Cranium… you are the one making the assertation. Therefore, you are the one who needs to provide the proof.
On this site, proof is peer-reviewed journal articles, if possible. Otherwise original sources such as books or other first-hand information. Wikipedia or sites that cite Wikipedia (or its ilk) are not acceptable “proof”.
No Elisabeth, Prolifer L. was the one who made the initial assertion, that “Marriage” actually means the physical, anatomical, physiological, hormonal, emotional, mental and spiritual joining of two distinctly different human beings with two distinctly different REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS’ – without providing any proof, evidence or logic.
The only even remote source that I can even discern for the claim is biblically based, which does not meet the criteria which you have stated above. I did cite peer-reviewed journals and books. Just because they were on the internet does not alter their validity. And they themselves provided references, even the Wikipedia piece.
And I’m still waiting for any ‘proof’ that Prolifer L.’s original subjective, unsupported claim is at all valid.
No, that is the general premise of the members of this site. If you wish, as an outsider, to refute it, feel free.
And again, we don’t do the research for you. Telling us that wikipedia has sources cited is the height of lazy. If you’d care for an example, go see my latest response on the police chief rape statements controversy.
Otherwise, you will find that no one here will bother giving any credence to anything you have to say.
Elisabeth, the members of this site, and any acolytes, amount to no more than ‘some isolated person or persons who makes a new claim’. The vast majority of members of this site probably don’t support Obama either, but guess who won the election. Shows that just beacuse you say it doesn’t make it so.
If that is the general premise of this site then it is it’s own little world, with its own ‘truths’ that do not exist anywhere else.
You, and Lori, keep attacking the method of delivery of the message. What you consistently fail to do is negate the message itself. Do any of you have any proof? Any? Anyone?
Again… burden of proof is on you, just as if we went to a site that held an opposing belief, burden of proof would be on us. G’nite.
Proof was provided Elisabeth. It was not refuted with anything but subjective opinion – no proof.
Still waiting.
Cranium, you have no idea of academic scholarship or history, absolutely none. You assert that WE are making the new unproved claim, when it’s the other way around? Sorry, that is nonsense.
Find me any solid history of marriage or any peer-reviewed article that states that it has always been the universal consensus among historians that homosexual marriage has been regularly recognized in society. I can assure you that there is no such book and your claims are fantasy.
Oh, and — I got my Ph.D in Medieval History from Fordham University in 2002. Before that I got my M.A. in general European history from the University of Northern Iowa. I also have an M.A. degree in Library Science from the University of Iowa. By the way, I can read, write and translate six languages, including medieval Latin, and can read historians from many countries as well as sources in the original languages.
Where did you get your Ph.D., cranium?
(I expect I’ll wait a long time for an answer)
Reading your long rant again, cranium, I can see that you actually have no idea what historical consensus is either. This means that all historians have generally always been agreed on something. An isolated article or two that makes new assertions is not consensus. And no, we are not in the position of the Civil War historians making new claims — YOU are.
Unfortunately I am right in the middle of a very difficult period at work, plus am editing a video documentary almost day and night. I don’t have time to draw up a list of scholarly books and articles on marriage for you. But you wouldn’t understand them anyway.
Please get yourself some kind of real education.
You’re not very subtle at moving the goalposts and shuffling the deck are you.
The evidence of homosexual marriage has been around longer than Ph.D’s or even the bible. So it is hardly a new claim. And I did not say ‘regularly’ recognized – I said ‘at different times’ and ‘in different cultures’.
‘Historical consensus’ does not mean that ALL historians have generally always agreed on something. It means that the majority of them agree at a particular point in time. The consensus changes according to the times and the evidence available.
Fordham, yes. A good Jesuit education. I’ve never been narrow focused enough to gain a Ph.D in anything. I’ve spread my studies and my qualifications across a broad socio-economic spectrum. This includes law, psychology, a lot of human resource management, business management and the arts. So I’m quite adept at researching anything. Not just Medieval History. And I find one or two languages is more than adequate to read what is written, hear what is heard and think – not listen to make -believe sky-friends.
And again, you demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to provide one scintilla of evidence to back your claim, not even one. I don’t need a whole list of ‘scholarly books and articles – just one will do for a start. But you can’t, can you.
Cranium, your sneers and attempts to dismiss my arguments with talk about “make-believe sky friends” mean that your post doesn’t deserve any kind of a reply, as far as I’m concerned. Isn’t it clear that no matter what I say you are going to answer it in the same way? You have what you consider irrefutable proof against me — I am a Christian with a “Jesuit education.” I’m not going to play that game.
However, before I go, let me add a few points.
“The evidence of homosexual marriage has been around longer than Ph.D’s or even the bible. So it is hardly a new claim.”
Here you have completely confused “historical claims” and “historical evidence.” Historical evidence is whatever exists that has survived from a particular culture – archeological artifacts, official records, letters, diaries, literary works, etc. Historical claims don’t exist until historians come along, examine this evidence, and tell us what they think it means. And then other historians agree with them or not, as the case may be. Some evidence exists for centuries before it is discovered, or after it is discovered it can just lie there for centuries more until some historian writes about it. So the fact that evidence exists does no mean that any particular historical claim about it is true. Modern historians may come along and take a new look at the evidence, but nothing they say about it is “proof” in itself of homosexual marriage existing, especially when the majority interpret it the other way.
“Historical consensus’ does not mean that ALL historians have generally always agreed on something. It means that the majority of them agree at a particular point in time. The consensus changes according to the times and the evidence available.”
Yes, historical consensus does frequently change when a subject has been controversial. Just try Civil War history for starters, or the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation. However, homosexual marriage is not in this boat, because no historians until about 15-20 years ago have decided to try interpreting the evidence to suggest that this kind of marriage existed. They only went looking for it when they wanted to find “proof” of homosexual marriage. So far they have not led to a new consensus. That is my claim. That is why listing the historians who haven’t believed that gay marriage really existed in history would take to long. It would include practically all the historians who have ever lived.
You have disqualified yourself from any further answer, as I said above. Learn to be civil if you want to discuss these matters.
You keep telling me that you have masses of evidence, the majority of historians and the overwhelming weight of all the historical data – yet you provide not one little piece, not one name, nada, nix, zero.
If it is as you claim, show me something, anything, rather than waffle on about semantic drivel.
I told you why I’m not answering, cranium. It’s useless to deal with a bigot.
If I’m wrong. If I’m a bigot. If I’m whatever you want to call me, doesn’t matter.
The fact is that you have repeatedly claimed that the evidence is on your side – yet you deliver absolutely nothing.
Not a drop, not a single piece, not anything.
All you’ve done is attack me directly and indirectly and spouted your PH.D in a particular speck of time in history.
You are starting to look foolish.
Cranium, you are the only one looking foolish here. And deliberately obtuse, at that.