Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…Ooh, new euphemism for me: “gender-balanced”
It’s not a euphemism.
…Your own coining or is this the new trendy phrase in anti-gay marriage circles?
It’s just plain language.
I’m opposed to SSM for the same reason I’m opposed to adultery.
Lion IRC:
Now DrTaffy, is it OK for the democratic majority in countries with Judeo-Christian (or Islamic) cultural values, to enact laws that favor gender-balanced marriage and nuclear families?
…in general I would say that unjustified discrimination is not ‘OK’. Would you say it is ‘OK’ for the ‘democratic majority’ in countries with Islamic cultural values to enact laws that punish catholics for attending mass?
Sure, if thats what was democratically mandated. But I would go to church no matter what some anti-Christian State tried to dictate… irrespective of whether the State was atheistic or Islamic.
 
My relative, who lived in a Communist country, sent a letter to my mother during the height of the Cold War that assured her that going to Church, First Communion and other things important to Catholics still occurred as before the Communist takeover.

Ed
 
Name some.
You can read about “two spirit” people in this Wikipedia article:
Two-spirit people (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans for gender variant individuals in their communities. Non-Native anthropologists have historically used the term berdaches /bərˈdæʃɨz/ for individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes, but this term has more recently fallen out of favour.
Third and fourth gender roles historically embodied by two-spirit people include performing work and wearing clothing associated with both men and women. Not all tribes have rigid gender roles. Among those that do, some tribes consider there to be at least four genders:
masculine men
feminine men
masculine women
feminine women.
The presence of male-bodied two-spirits “was a fundamental institution among most tribal peoples.”[1] According to Will Roscoe, male-bodied and female-bodied two-spirits have been “documented in over 130 North America tribes, in every region of the continent.”
In most tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen for the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more hetero-normative; European colonists, however, saw such relationships as homosexual. Partners of two-spirits have not historically viewed themselves as homosexual, and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

I don’t know much about marriage among Native Americans or how often two spirit people married. The article says:

“Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex. According to Lang, female assigned at birth two-spirits usually have sexual relations or marriages with only females.”
 
Native Americans had never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and so can be excused for their ignorance in matters of Divine Law. Thankfully, this is no longer the case.
 
You can read about “two spirit” people in this Wikipedia article:
Nothing in that wikipedia article notes some type of recognition of homosexual relationships as equal to marriage.

And it was claimed many cultures considered homosexual relationships as equal to marrige. Please give some more citations.
 
Nothing in that wikipedia article notes some type of recognition of homosexual relationships as equal to marriage.

And it was claimed many cultures considered homosexual relationships as equal to marrige. Please give some more citations.
If you read the article, you will see that it says, “In most tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen for the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more hetero-normative; European colonists, however, saw such relationships as homosexual. Partners of two-spirits have not historically viewed themselves as homosexual, and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.” So how can you even talk about “homosexual relations” in this context since the terms homosexual and heterosexual (both 19th century European inventions) are not part of how Native Americans thought about this issue.I’m also not sure that Native Americans viewed marriage like Europeans or white Americans did.

Do your own research and find out.
 
If you read the article, you will see that it says, “In most tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen for the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more hetero-normative; European colonists, however, saw such relationships as homosexual. Partners of two-spirits have not historically viewed themselves as homosexual, and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.” So how can you even talk about “homosexual relations” in this context since the terms homosexual and heterosexual (both 19th century European inventions) are not part of how Native Americans thought about this issue.I’m also not sure that Native Americans viewed marriage like Europeans or white Americans did.
A ‘two spirit’ is someone who is more transgender than homosexual. They were not necessarily respected by their tribes, see the article here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Off topic much?
 
If you read the article, you will see that it says, “In most tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen for the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more hetero-normative; European colonists, however, saw such relationships as homosexual. Partners of two-spirits have not historically viewed themselves as homosexual, and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.” So how can you even talk about “homosexual relations” in this context since the terms homosexual and heterosexual (both 19th century European inventions) are not part of how Native Americans thought about this issue.I’m also not sure that Native Americans viewed marriage like Europeans or white Americans did.

Do your own research and find out.
You are the one making the claim. You need to substantiate it.

And I read the article. It gives no light on if these relationships were viewed on par with marriage. And the claim was many societies, not one.
 
A ‘two spirit’ is someone who is more transgender than homosexual. They were not necessarily respected by their tribes, see the article here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Off topic much?
The boundaries between these topics are not clear cut. There is, for example, a section on two spirit people in Stephen O. Murray, Homosexualities (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 348-353.
 
You can read about “two spirit” people in this Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

I don’t know much about marriage among Native Americans or how often two spirit people married. The article says:

“Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex. According to Lang, female assigned at birth two-spirits usually have sexual relations or marriages with only females.”
Oh good heavens…the article is full of suppositions, thoughts and “mights.” This is hardly evidence of an established and formalized same sex relationship. Sort of like the gay penguin theory, no one was able to interview the penguins to see if it were a committed relationship or just a way to stay warm in the Arctic.😉
 
Name some.
Examples of civilisations that had same sex marriage.

The Arapaho: Alfred L. Kroeber, The Arapaho, 18 Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 1, 19 (1902)
The Navajo: W.W. Hill, The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navajo Culture, 37 Am. Anthropologist 273 (1935)
The Mohave: George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, 9 Hum.
Biology 498 (1937)
Winnebago: Nancy 0. Lurie, Winnebago Berdache, 55 Am. Anthropologist 708 (1953)
The Pima: W.W. Hill, Note on the Pima Berdache, 40 Am. Anthropologist 338 (1938)
Zuni: Elsie C. Parsons, The Zuni La’Mana, 18 Am. Anthropologist 521 (1916)
Matilda C. Stevenson, The Zuni Indians, The Twenty-Third Ann. Rep. Bureau Am. Ethnology 3 (1904)
Will Roscoe, The Zuni Man-Woman 29-52 (1991)
Tahiti: Robert I. Levy, The Community Function of Tahitian Male Transvestitism, 44 Anthropological Q. 12 (1971)

Charles Callender & Lee M. Kochems, The North American Berdache, 24 Current Anthropology 443 (1983)
James S. Thayer, The Berdache of the Northern Plains, 36 J. Anthropological Res. 287 (1980)
Donald G. Forgey, The Institution of Berdache Among the North American Plains Indians, 11 J. Sex Res. 1 (1975)

Francisco Guerra, The Pre-Columbian Mind (1971) :
Cites many contemporary reports of same sex marriage, for example:
Francisco Lopez de Gomara, History of the Indies (1552)
Alvar Cabeza de Vaca , Narrative of the Expeditions and Shipwrecks of Cabeza de Vaca (1542)
Juan de Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana (1615)
Pedro de Magdlhaes, The Histories of Brazil (1576)
Siberia:
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality(1988)
Among the Paleo-Siberians (Chukchee, Koryak, Kamchadal, Asiatic Eskimo), male shamans were ordered by a female spirit to dress as women. As the spirit often became a supernatural spouse who was jealous of earthly women, many of the shamans acquired male sexual partners who had intercourse with them anally, and most of them married other men.’
Waldemar Bogoras, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: The Chukchee 451 (Franz Boas ed., 1904-1909)
The marriage [between a soft man and his husband] is performed with the usual rites, and I must say that it forms a quite solid union, which often lasts till the death of one of the parties. The couple live much in the same way as do other people.
Similar traditions in Vietnam, India, Burma, Korea, Nepal, the Austral Islands, New Zealand, and the Cook Islands

Africa:
Ifi Amadiume, Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society 48-49 (1987)
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Sexual Inversion Among the Azande, 72 Am. Anthropologist 1428-34 (1970)

David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality(1988)
The mugawe, a powerful religious leader of the Kenyan Meru, is considered a complement to the male political leaders and consequently must exemplify feminine qualities: he wears women’s clothing and adopts women’s hairstyles; he is often homosexual, and sometimes marries a man.
Melville J. Herskovits, A Note on “Woman Marriage” in Dahomey, 10 Africa 335 (1937)
Eileen J. Krige, Note on the Phalaborwa and Their Morula Complex, 11 Bantu Stud. 357 (1937).
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer 108-09 (1951):
What seems to us, but not at all to Nuer, a somewhat strange union is that in which a woman marries another woman and counts as the pater [father] of the children born of the wife. Such marriages are by no means uncommon in Nuerland, and they must be regarded as a form of simple legal marriage, for the woman-husband marries her wife in exactly the same way as a man marries a woman
Denise O’Brien, Female Husbands in Southern Bantu Societies, in Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural View 109 (Alice Schlegel ed., 1977)
The term female husband … refers to a woman who takes on the legal and social roles of husband and father by marrying another woman according to the approved rules and ceremonies of her society. She may belong to any one of over 30 African populations
Egypt:
Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9]
What did they do? A man married a man, and a woman married a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, and a woman married two men.
(Supported by burials of male same sex couples with stela depicting them in intimate poses. Including one king, Akhenaten)
See also the Siwa Oasis where same sex marriage traditions persisted into the modern era.
Walter Cline, Notes of the People of Siwah and el Garah in the Libyan Desert (Leslie Spier ed., 1936)
Edmund Leach, Marriage, Legitimacy, Alliance, in Social Anthropology 176, 210 (1982)

Hittite code of law covering male same sex couples:
Ephraim Neufeld, The Hittite Laws 8-11 (1951)

Rome:
Martial, Juvenal and Cicero all mention same sex (male) marriages taking place with the same rites and under the same laws as opposite sex marriages.
 
Akhenaten had eight children. Even if he did have a relationship with a man (or a woman dressed as a man, neither of which has been proven) he is not the most respected nor embraced of Egyptian kings and doesn’t prove that such a relationship was well accepted in Egypt. It is kind of like pointing to Nero and saying that his was a normal Roman household.

All this talk about different historical societies where they really didn’t embrace homosexual relationships as we know them today, nor for most even have the same concept of such a relationship, is a bit irrelevant. It is like grasping at smoke to try to prove a point that cannot be proven since the cultures are so different. The one thing that is constant throughout most all of these cultures is the concept of marriage between a man and a woman to unite to produce children. That idea was pretty universal throughout the ages. All the rest is an attempt to justify today’s actions by twisting views of historical cultures.
 
Follow The Footnote or the Advocate as Historian of Same-Sex Marriage attempts to deal with a lot of the claims about historical marriage:

scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=lawreview
Towards the end of this monograph, the authors conclude that Professor Eskridge’s “attempt to enroll history in his brief for same-sex marriage” is without merit:

“Nothing asserted here is accurate. There is no “rich history of same sex
marriage” that he has “uncovered,” that was “suppressed in recent
Western history, and is only now coming to light.” The “resistance” to
same-sex marriage is not limited to “Western culture” with its age-old
“anti-homosexual hysteria and bigotry,” but extends to almost every culture
throughout the world, including even those, such as Tahiti, that provide
an officially sanctioned social role for homosexuals, but do not extend
society’s official approval to same-sex marriages. Yet in an
important case in 1992, Eskridge’s “history” made, in a potted form, its
first blithe appearance. Having acquired a baseless plausibility, it continues
to be referred to, and to be employed to the same effect, in propagandistic
journalism, and in cases before the courts.”
 
All this talk about different historical societies where they really didn’t embrace homosexual relationships as we know them today, nor for most even have the same concept of such a relationship, is a bit irrelevant. It is like grasping at smoke to try to prove a point that cannot be proven since the cultures are so different. The one thing that is constant throughout most all of these cultures is the concept of marriage between a man and a woman to unite to produce children. That idea was pretty universal throughout the ages. All the rest is an attempt to justify today’s actions by twisting views of historical cultures.
Yes, I agree. It is grasping at straws. The poverty of these claims is unfortunately self-evident to all but those who want/need to see something there.
 
Towards the end of this monograph, the authors conclude that Professor Eskridge’s “attempt to enroll history in his brief for same-sex marriage” is without merit:
Which rather begs the question of why this article is published in a student run Catholic law journal, rather than a journal of sociology or anthropology.:rolleyes:

Until you look at the polemical style and the low quality of evidence and argument, at which point it becomes quit obvious. They stop just short of citing someone they met in a pub!😛

Still, feel free to cite where this student-published monograph proves that the Mohave, for example, did not have same sex marriages. :ehh:
 
Still, feel free to cite where this student-published monograph proves that the Mohave, for example, did not have same sex marriages. :ehh:
The Mohave ceremony was for transvestites not blessing active homosexuals. It was meant to set the person apart, to make him like a shaman because he acted strangely. It was rare, and the person was considered odd. It hardly amounted to a societal blessing as normal of what today we consider homosexual marriage. Nice try though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top