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.
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.
And as such your comment is totally off topic. Thank you for stopping by.2
John Boswell is described as a "prominent Historian and professor at Yale University."
It seems to me that whether or not you agree with his hypotheses, he deserves credit for his educated erudition and scholarly contributions. The guy can not be dismissed.
Rather than focus on the research of a single scholar, one should investigate a wide body of research and literature on the nature and history of same-sex relationships. A good place to start is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida of all places: The Stonewall National Museum and Archives (founded in 1973), which contains over 30,000 volumes, and tens of thousands of publications, clippings, ephemera, video tapes, and artifacts relating only to sexual orientation and LGBT studies. It is located on Sunrise Blvd. in what was formally the main public library building of the city of Fort Lauderdale.
John Boswell is described as a "prominent Historian and professor at Yale University."
It seems to me that whether or not you agree with his hypotheses, he deserves credit for his educated erudition and scholarly contributions. The guy can not be dismissed.
Rather than focus on the research of a single scholar, one should investigate a wide body of research and literature on the nature and history
Of course he deserves credit but his work in academia but it does not mean he is infallible...
And as such your comment is totally off topic. Thank you for stopping by.2
You stated in the OP that you came here as a consequence of your participation in a thread which is discussing same sex marriage.
The logical assumption which flows from that is that you came here seeking either confirmation, or disconfirmation, of Boswell's legitimacy, and that you have done so in the hope of finding support for whichever position you are taking in that other thread.
Am I right so far?
If you are arguing against same sex marriage in that other thread, then you are hoping that someone here will provide you with a statement that Boswell's methodology was flawed because he began his research with an agenda rather than a question. If you are arguing in favor of same sex marriage in that other thread, you came here hoping to find an affirmation of Boswell's historical methodology which you then will take back to that other thread as support of your position.
Isn't that true as well?
What you got from me was.....you are wasting your time. Regardless of Boswell's legitimacy or lack of the same, the argument in which you are engaged in that other thread should not depend upon that answer.
Or....would you have us believe that there is no relationship at all between your participation in that other thread and your visit here?
I'm not off topic, I'm just not giving you what you wanted.
You stated in the OP that you came here as a consequence of your participation in a thread which is discussing same sex marriage.
The logical assumption which flows from that is that you came here seeking either confirmation, or disconfirmation, of Boswell's legitimacy, and that you have done so in the hope of finding support for whichever position you are taking in that other thread.
Am I right so far?
If you are arguing against same sex marriage in that other thread, then you are hoping that someone here will provide you with a statement that Boswell's methodology was flawed because he began his research with an agenda rather than a question. If you are arguing in favor of same sex marriage in that other thread, you came here hoping to find an affirmation of Boswell's historical methodology which you then will take back to that other thread as support of your position.
Isn't that true as well?
What you got from me was.....you are wasting your time. Regardless of Boswell's legitimacy or lack of the same, the argument in which you are engaged in that other thread should not depend upon that answer.
Or....would you have us believe that there is no relationship at all between your participation in that other thread and your visit here?
I'm not off topic
Yes you are. If you have a problem understanding the topic or the first post let me know.
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?
Sorry, but it has become clear at this point you are not meaningfully versed in the subject of history or anthropology.
"So in other words there are NOrecords of same sex marriages in Greece, as opposed to claims by John Boswell." You must have missed the part about laws concerning the relationships of pederasty, and the rituals involved in some of those relationships. I'm afraid that YOU are the one who "seem to make a cardinal sin by applying modern concepts to antiquity. "
Farm work, drawing water, and the processing of food is a traditional role for females, still practiced in many places today, as opposed to your "farm work was way to (sic) hard for most women" statement.
"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. (sic)"
The definition of Greek slavery comes very close to:
Slavery was a social contract to insure the slave has a place to live and something to eat, and in exchange had to obey the individual who supported (him or her) and provide him and take care of his offspring and property. -which was my point.
"Throughout most of our civilization marriage as opposed to an union, was an institution created to ensure survival of the species. "
Not at all. Consider the multitude of wives of Solomon and other rulers. Survival of the species is just spin. There are cultures where children are raised by grandparents and extended family, and those cultures survive just fine. Other methods are also possible. The institution of marriage is more one of survival of the culture, especially if that culture expresses as a religion. What better way to enforce a religion than make marriage a contractual obligation that can ONLY be legitimized by adhering to the rules and forms of the religion. Even then, survival of the species and changes in culture periodically came about through royalty having a bast*rd (out of wedlock) child and that child gaining power and dominion.
Your closing point: "Of course there are those who think that marriage is just an union with a paper signed by both parties but then.. why bother?" informs me that you are only interested in history to the extent that it supports your view of the institution of marriage. I can assure you that history does not care one whit what either of us might think. History simply IS. You can try to deny parts of it, you can try to spin it, but ultimately it is unchangeable and is what actually happened.
Sorry, but it has become clear at this point you are not meaningfully versed in the subject of history or anthropology.
"So in other words there are NOrecords of same sex marriages in Greece, as opposed to claims by John Boswell." You must have missed the part about laws concerning the relationships of pederasty, and the rituals involved in some of those relationships. I'm afraid that YOU are the one who "seem to make a cardinal sin by applying modern concepts to antiquity. "
No I am fully aware of the laws and know
Farm work, drawing water, and the processing of food is a traditional role for females, still practiced in many places today, as opposed to your "farm work was way to (sic) hard for most women" statement.
"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. (sic)"
The definition of Greek slavery comes very close to:
Slavery was a social contract to insure the slave has a place to live and something to eat, and in exchange had to obey the individual who supported (him or her) and provide him and take care of his offspring and property. -which was my point.
"Throughout most of our civilization marriage as opposed to an union, was an institution created to ensure survival of the species. "
Not at all. Consider the multitude of wives of Solomon and other rulers. Survival of the species is just spin.
I see no point in continuing.
Me neither. I don't think you even understand what you typed.
1. Greek pederasty was only a temporary arrangement and after reaching adolescence Greek youth were expected to marry... a women. Greek pederasty had nothing to do with marriage but more with child abuse as we would call it today. Again the only marriage we know of in ancient Greece is between a man and a women.
2. The actual hard farm work like plowing was always reserved for men as too hard for women. Also women did not to have to fight to defend their land. This was a duty of a man.
3. Greek slavery was not a contract. Your slave was your property you owed him nothing and could do with him/her whatever you wanted.
If marriage was as bad as you portrayed it, a slavery to the man, then why one of the biggest concerns of every woman was to find a husband and get married??? LOL
4. What do Solomon's wives have to do with anything? Thousands year ago there was many more women then men, men where dying relatively young from hard work and in wars, as it was their duty to defend their land. Polygamy made perfect sense as ther was not enough men for all women and through polygamy more women could have offspring and someone to provide for that offspring.
You sound like someone who is versed in ancient history, namely memorized passages from textbooks but have no ability to piece the puzzle together or think on your own.
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?
The status of women was something more akin to a slave than a spouse. Women in general had very little status. Men married, or took a wife, so they could have legitimate children. But they also had long term relationships with other men which was seen as a real bond and sometimes it was formalized. 'Marriage' as we know it was closer to the bonds formed with men than wives they took as a formality. This was also an age in which it was not uncommon to 'expose' newborn female babies when there were sufficent, but boys were treasured.
You can't translate either exactly in current terms.
The relationship between men and women among Greeks was well defined as just a union with a paper signed by both parties, except in this case it would be the woman's father or brother. She didn't get to pick.
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.
