Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In one of the threads on same-sex marriage there is a discussion regarding works of late John Boswell who claimed that same-sex unions or even marriages were wide spread in ancient Greece and Rome, including early Christianity. His books are highly controversial but I wonder what is the opinion of those interested in ancient history?
I've not read the books, thus I am not positioned to evaluate the content.
king's highway may correct me if my guess is wrong, but I don't think he or she has read the books either. However, that does not appear to have restrained El Camino Real.
Science fiction is a whole different subject. You are more correctly asking if his themes are science fantasy or some sort of falsified apologia.
While I have not read his books, if you have even a passing knowledge of the history of the Roman Catholic church, you'll already know that during the middle ages especially that all sorts of sexual variations were practiced. The Greek sexuality practices were similarly documented as looking upon homosexuality and pederasty as part of the pantheon of behaviors.
The fact that you are even asking the question indicates to me that there are some major gaps in your reading.
Science fiction is a whole different subject. You are more correctly asking if his themes are science fantasy or some sort of falsified apologia.
While I have not read his books, if you have even a passing knowledge of the history of the Roman Catholic church, you'll already know that during the middle ages especially that all sorts of sexual variations were practiced. The Greek sexuality practices were similarly documented as looking upon homosexuality and pederasty as part of the pantheon of behaviors.
The fact that you are even asking the question indicates to me that there are some major gaps in your reading.
Why participate in the forum if not to ask questions? I went to collegeb about 20 years ago and don't recall any mention of marriages other than between heterosexuals in ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity. Keep in mind that marriage is an union sanctioned by the law. Do you of any documentation to the contrary?
Since you used Wikipedia...
"In Athens, as elsewhere, pederastia began among the aristocracy, but in time was picked up by others.[citation needed] Attic pottery is a major source for modern scholars attempting to understand the institution of pederasty.[78] The age of youth depicted has been estimated variously from 12 to 18.[79] A number of Athenian laws addressed the pederastic relationship." Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the concept of "marriage," perhaps this might shed a little light on what marriage was back then:
"
Women were the guardians of citizenship. An Athenian citizen had to make sure all his wife's children were his. To keep her away from temptation, she was locked away in the women's quarter and accompanied by a male when she went outside. If she were caught with another man in flagrante delicto, the man could be killed or brought to court. When the woman married she was a piece of property transferred from her father (or other male guardian) to her husband. In Sparta, the need for Spartan citizens was strong, but women were encouraged to bear children to a citizen who would sire well if her own husband proved inadequate. There she wasn't so much her spouse's property as the state's -- as were her children and her husband."
Marriage was much closer to slavery than a modern western concept of marriage.
The above citations are mildly questionable, and don't have the rigor needed for scholarly work, but point you in the general direction you would want to be looking. The whole recent western (specifically Bible Belt) concept of marriages is limited and often used as a rallying cry more than an exploration of actual culture in Biblical times.
I suggest that you might want to look into the Hellenic period of Judaism and the original restrictions used to limit the influence of a Greek culture that was swallowing a large part of the intelligentsia. A starting point:
"Prior to the Hellenistic period the Jewish concept of the afterlife had been drastically different from what it became during that time. Through the Jewish apocalyptic literature written during that period, we see the introduction of the concepts of the immortality of the soul, stellar immortality, and resurrection after death. It was the Greek influence of the Hellenistic age that gave impetus to the emergence of the Jewish eschatological salvation."
Without Greek influence, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the religion which started with Jesus would have such a concept as a Heaven where souls went in an afterlife. Without that concept, that religion would probably have failed long ago.
Since you used Wikipedia...
"In Athens, as elsewhere, pederastia began among the aristocracy, but in time was picked up by others.[citation needed] Attic pottery is a major source for modern scholars attempting to understand the institution of pederasty.[78] The age of youth depicted has been estimated variously from 12 to 18.[79] A number of Athenian laws addressed the pederastic relationship." Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the concept of "marriage," perhaps this might shed a little light on what marriage was back then:
"
Women were the guardians of citizenship. An Athenian citizen had to make sure all his wife's children were his. To keep her away from temptation, she was locked away in the women's quarter and accompanied by a male when she went outside. If she were caught with another man in flagrante delicto, the man could be killed or brought to court. When the woman married she was a piece of property transferred from her father (or other male guardian) to her husband. In Sparta, the need for Spartan citizens was strong, but women were encouraged to bear children to a citizen who would sire well if her own husband proved inadequate. There she wasn't so much her spouse's property as the state's -- as were her children and her husband."
Marriage was much closer to slavery than a modern western concept of marriage.
The whole recent western (specifically Bible Belt) concept of marriages is limited and often used as a rallying cry more than an exploration of actual culture in Biblical times.
Thank you. So in other words there are NOrecords of same sex marriages in Greece, as opposed to claims by John Boswell.
Also, you seem to make a cardinal sin by applying modern concepts to antiquity. I hope you understand that women in these days did not have a chance of surviving on their own, there was no industry that would employ them and military or farm work was way to hard for most women so their choices of occupations were very limited. Women might have been treated subjectively or as property but were in exchange supported throught their lifetime, did not have to serve in the army and generally lived longer then men.
My point is that marriage was a social contract to ensure woman is supported, has a place to live and something to eat, and in exchange had to obey the individual who supported and provide him and take care of his off spring.
Life in antiquity, for both men and women, was much more about mere survival then enjoyment. Both men and women had their roles to play and were bound by their social status and wealth which determined their paths in life from the very beginning.
Throughout most of our civilization marriage as opposed to an union, was an institution created to ensure survival of the species.
I don't think it changed that much at all.
Of course there are those who think that marriage is just an union with a paper signed by both parties but then.. why bother?
Whether the ancients were enthusiasts for same sex unions or despised the same, why should their points of view have any relationship to what we decide to permit or ban today?
The Hebrew bible instructs adherents to murder apostates and adulteresses. Leviticus is chockablock with the instructions of The Lord...for example.
Only family members may touch a dead body. (21: 1-4)
Harlots must be burned by fire (21: 8-10)
If you buy a house, the price must be based on the number of years which have passed since The Jubilee (25: 31-33)
Failure to comply would come with horrible punishment from The Lord:
"But if you will not listen to Me, and will not practice all these commandements, if you despise my laws, if your soul abhors MY injunctions, if you fail to put all my orders into practice, then I will do this to you: I will visit you with terror, with tuberculosis and burning fever that destroys the eyes and saps the life. You will sow vainly for your enemy shall eat it." (26: 14-18)
Keep in mind, the above punishment applies to any violation of any of the laws.
The condemnation of homosexuality is among the Leviticvus laws.
Why do modern Christians elect to take that last law seriously while utterly ignoring 90% of the edicts found in this book?
Clearly this is menu Christianity, employing the bible to pick and choose whatever laws strike the reader as convenient to their personal prejudices while ignoring the others.
Or do the same people who hide behind Leviticus to prop up their prejudices against homosexuality, actually tell their real estate agents.."Well, that's a good offer, but based on the number of years which have passed since the Jubilee, it is too much. Try and find a buyer who offers less."
21st Century morality should be based on 21st Century conditions, not on the mentalities which prevailed in some desert backwater 3000 years ago.
Whether the ancients were enthusiasts for same sex unions or despised the same, why should their points of view have any relationship to what we decide to permit or ban today?
The Hebrew bible instructs adherents to murder apostates and adulteresses. Leviticus is chockablock with the instructions of The Lord...for example.
Only family members may touch a dead body. (21: 1-4)
Harlots must be burned by fire (21: 8-10)
If you buy a house, the price must be based on the number of years which have passed since The Jubilee (25: 31-33)
Failure to comply would come with horrible punishment from The Lord:
"But if you will not listen to Me, and will not practice all these commandements, if you despise my laws, if your soul abhors MY injunctions, if you fail to put all my orders into practice, then I will do this to you: I will visit you with terror, with tuberculosis and burning fever that destroys the eyes and saps the life. You will sow vainly for your enemy shall eat it." (26: 14-18)
Keep in mind, the above punishment applies to any violation of any of the laws.
The condemnation of homosexuality is among the Leviticvus laws.
Why do modern Christians elect to take that last law seriously while utterly ignoring 90% of the edicts found in this book?
Clearly this is menu Christianity, employing the bible to pick and choose whatever laws strike the reader as convenient to their personal prejudices while ignoring the others.
Or do the same people who hide behind Leviticus to prop up their prejudices against homosexuality, actually tell their real estate agents.."Well, that's a good offer, but based on the number of years which have passed since the Jubilee, it is too much. Try and find a buyer who offers less."
21st Century morality should be based on 21st Century conditions, not on the mentalities which prevailed in some desert backwater 3000 years ago.
Or have you killed an apostate today?
Bud, I did not create this thread to discuss validity of same sex marriage but works of certain historian. Could you please either stay on topic or move on ?
Bud, I did not create this thread to discuss validity of same sex marriage but works of certain historian. Could you please either stay on topic or move on ?
My name isn't Bud and I have submitted no argument for or against permitting same sex marriage. My comment was that we have no need whatsoever to pay any attention to what is or isn't discovered by researchers with regard to same sex marriages in ancient times.
I'm saying the findings of this particular historian should be viewed as morally irrelevant. In that this particular historian's goal was finding relevant backing in ancient sources for our modern moral decisions, I'm going to rule my contribution spot on topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
