It seems when a leftist agenda is at stake, you take great pains to be uncritical Steven.
This article is profoundly weak in that it only shows changes in social motives for marriage through time. In every single instance where marriage is mentioned the biological basis remains the same – heterosexual. In no instance of real marriage is there any other assumption.
The very first item it mentions was not marriage, and indeed there is no valid support whatever that the Roman Church recognized same sex marriage at any time in its history. What we see here is homosexuals advancing lies in order to advance their cause. The idea that that the adelphopoiia liturgy was considered a same sex marriage is false, an idea advanced only by the very homosexual historian John Boswell en.wikipedia.org. It was the last idea he advanced, releasing the book shortly after his death. Prudent scholars reject his view.
From: Tom Noble tfn@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship
A solid review is one that takes a book seriously on its won terms and deals with it positively or negatively as the case seems to demand. A critical review is one that examines a work closely, not one that is negative. There have been good reviews, by these standards, of Boswell's book. One is by Brent Shaw in the July 18/25 New Republic. Another very interesting one was in last Sunday's Washington Post Book World by--fasten your seat belts--Camille Paglia. A few weeks ago in the NYT book review Meyendorff had his go at it. Each of these reviews has been devastating. I read the book last April--a prepublication copy--and I concur with the negative assessments. The evidence will not bear the interpretations Boswell asks it to. I know and admire JEB Boswell.. I count him a friend. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with his book. Is he advocating something? Certainly, but where's the harm in that? The case rises or falls on whether or not the rites of adelphopoiesis that B. finds in several (around 16, if I remember) Orthodox liturgies constitute a rite for "gay marriage." I do not think so and so far no specialists in Orthodox liturgy thinks so either. Is there a pervasive disinclination on the part of conservative or touchy Orthodox scholars to give B. a hearing. In some cases, undoubtedly. But not in all cases. The case is weak. And the western evidence B adduces--three early medieval charters and a chance reference in Giraldus Cambrensis--are deeply ambiguous, widely separated in time and place, and almost certainly irrelevant. So at best, B. has a curious Orthodox phenomenon. And virtually his only corroborative anecdotal evidence is from late medieval Albania. I leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to decide what that means.
Each reader must decide for him or herself. But it will be entirely possible to disagree with this book, and even to have grave doubts about its scholarship, without being homophobic, conservative, or indeed and apologist for any cause. One can approach this book the way one would a book on, say, the Norman conquest or the Fourth Crusade or the Reconquista.
fordham.edu
Leftists are liars... |
