Community | August 23, 2010 | 88 comments

Early Christians Condoned Gay Marriage

source: http://www.alternet.org/story/147925/christian_right_bigots_are_hiding_the_truth_--_early_ch...

Image
toyotabedzrock
Many of the world's religions -- including Christianity -- supported same-sex unions, a reality obscured by modern-day shrill, conservative commentary.

Through much of history, especially prior to the Fourteenth Century, many Christians did not share the view that marriage was a reward for being heterosexual, nor that a same-sex union was objectionable.


An icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai illustrates this point. It shows two robed Christian saints getting married. Their pronubus (official witness, or “best man”) is none other than Jesus Christ.


It is a standard Roman portrayal of a wedding. The difference: the two saints are both male, Fourth Century Christian martyrs, Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus, close friends in the Roman army who were purportedly singled out for their secret adherence to Christianity before being tortured and killed.


Their unity, considered romantic by some historians and depicted through the image of marriage at St. Catherine’s monastery, was commemorated in many subsequent liturgies. The late Yale historian John Boswell found evidence for other Christian same-sex marriage ceremonies continuing even into the Eighteenth Century.

**********************Go Read, this is only a the first few paragraphs of it***************************
*******It's not a long article so go read!
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   US Politics,   Sex and Love,   20 more
  2. tags:
    Religion,  Gay,  GLBT,  LGBT,  4 more
  3.     
    |

88 comments // Early Christians Condoned Gay Marriage

  • seekingandhoping
    • +2
      seekingandhoping  
    • Image

    • http://Americanpapist.com

      Americanpapist.com featured a blog posting (http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php?p=8289) by Thomas Peters which responded to this article. I offered the following response to Thomas on his blog (which has yet to be approved). I hope that it benefits this conversation taking place on this discussion board and that Thomas responds to my inquiries.

      Thomas,

      Your blog is always an interesting source for intriguing stories regarding the Roman Catholic Church, however, this particular posting overlooks an important point regarding the "sacrament" of marriage. First, it is a fact that marriage is an institution that predates Christianity. We need only reference the early jurists of Rome or the fragments of Germanic law to understand that marriage has itself evolved since its inception in the Ancient world. In fact, in Ancient Rome, it would have been enough to co-habitate for a marriage to be considered valid. In addition, early marriage would have required consummation (depending on the period in Roman Law and Germanic Law). This may draw into question a consideration of whether Mary and Joseph were really "married" or if Joseph was merely Mary's guardian --- still a position of honor. Yet, I do not seek to answer the question of whether there was a nuptial agreement between Mary and Joseph for I respect the work of theologians in this regard. It would be nice though to hear your thoughts as a theologian on this question.

      Further, I believe that your posting regarding Maguire's piece (and Maguire himself) fail to consider early Christian scholars who they themselves spoke of love between gay men. This is especially evident in the writings of Aelred of Riveaulx, a twelfth-century English Cistercian abbot. Many theologians and philosophers have commented on the erotic nature of Aelred's writings and have in turn contributed to our spectrum of understanding regarding the early Church's varied perspectives on same-sex relations.

      We might also consider the two knights that died in 1391 in Constantinople. On their tomb, it states that they were companions for thirteen years. This word "companion" may appear inconclusive to a contemporary reader, but in Medieval society (as in Biblical society), companion would have implied something far more intimate than friendship. This is the same conclusion that I believe can most accurately be drawn from Boswell's 1994 work on the same-sex ceremony (adelphopoiia) which he describes.

      It is of further importance to note that it was not until Medieval France that we see the Christianization of marriage that we acknowledge today. In fact, in Ancient Rome and even early Christianity, nuptial ceremonies were neither required nor common. The Christianization of marriage is likely linked to the early mistranslation of mysterion (Greek) to sacramentum (Latin) -- words that have very different meanings in both theology and for society in general.

      I only offer these comments in charity and pray that you will offer the same degree of charity with a response that seeks to provide a theological basis for your degradation of relations between men of the same sex. I do believe that the history of Christianity paints a very different story then you seek to display, because the early Church lacks the assertive language that you use to express the contemporary Church's position on homosexual relations. As a scholar, I believe that the early Church did not hold a universal opinion regarding same-sex relations as it lacked the authority that today the Church's has vested in the Holy See and the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. To presume that the Church's teachings on homosexual relationships has been without change and is the same today as it was in Medieval society, is to deny the validity of history, the contributions of early theologians, and the development of the institution of marriage itself -- an institution which history shows pre-dates the sacrament of the Church.

    • 1 year ago
  • mojojuju
  • Naumadd
  • bc_f
    • bc_f [removed]  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • mojojuju
  • Sparky2U
  • KSirys
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +3
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Sparky2U:

      Is it BS because the source is unreliable? Is it BS because it is in contradiction with either biblical readings or recent Christian views? Or is it BS because you don't like it and just say it is?

    • 1 year ago
  • ocanada
    • +2
      ocanada  
    • Sparky2U:

      It's actually true. Not only did the early church not have celibate priests but several early saints were homosexual. The only passages in the bible relating to homosexuality as a sin came in Leviticus where it is said to lie with a man as you would a woman is an abomination. By this it is assumed to mean to use a man for sexual gratification as you would another woman outside of marriage. Leviticus is also where the tradition of stoning women for acts of infidelity came into being. That is a practice Jesus famously advised us to end with both actions and words saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. With his actions Jesus refutes much of the tradition of Leviticus and perhaps even makes an argument against stifling dogma in religious practices as we move away from the time of law into the time of forgiveness. Also sodomy the traditional pejorative thrown towards biblical homosexuality actually refers to anal sex and I'm afraid that there are many more sodomites in America than homosexuals.

      The truth is that the Torah might even contain a positive portrayal of homosexuality and love/fellowship between men. Johnathan in the book of Kings is referred to in effeminate terms by his father who accuses him of loving David above women and David describes their love as a love at first sight and claims his love for Johnathon exceeds that for all of woman. While it is certainly possible no insinuations were meant in the greek and hebraic text things become more explicit and more akin to the common usage of the day in regards to masciline romance which was far more common then than today.

    • 1 year ago
  • Prijedor
  • Naumadd
  • DRudeBoy
    • +1
      DRudeBoy  

    • Christianity has been varied and diverse since Christ's death and resurrection.

      Seriously, less than fifty years after his death different Christian group already had different practices and different beliefs. I don't really like using the phrase "early Christians" to describe one monolithic group.

    • 1 year ago
  • bike10
  • H3ADLINE
  • EmperorThan
  • crimson_thoughts
  • H3ADLINE
  • pissedoff
    • -9
      pissedoff  

    • It doe not matter if a person claiming to be a Christian or a church corporation accepts homosexuality. It is a sin for a Christian to engage in perverted sexual acts.
      I have a drivers licence yet I break the law everytime I speed. It does not change the law just because I don't obey the law.

    • 1 year ago
  • H3ADLINE
    • +6
      H3ADLINE  
    • pissedoff:

      I don't live in a theocracy. Go join the nuts in the middle east who want one. I'm content with the secular Constitution that gives me the freedom to not live under your religious beliefs.

    • 1 year ago
  • DRudeBoy
  • pissedoff
    • 0
      pissedoff  
    • H3ADLINE:

      h3
      Did not ask you to believe as I do. Really don't care, although I am supposed to be concerned about your salvation, i'm really not, that is my sin i don't give a shit that you are are a lost soul. I believe that is Christ burden to call you if you are worth. You may ask yourself why has Christ no found me worth saving, has he called and I did not listen, or am I dead to God.
      Again I dont care.

    • 1 year ago
  • Naumadd
    • 0
      Naumadd  
    • pissedoff:

      And silly human laws don't change the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally among human beings AND among the individuals of many other species.

      Interestingly, it seems to be a particularly human trait to pass silly laws banning that which occurs naturally and what is essentially beyond the ability of human beings to regulate.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +3
      jubal  

    • Most people don't know this but Jesus was an extraterrestrial hybrid. He had his Paternal DNA implanted directly into the womb of Mary.

    • 1 year ago
  • iLoveOlivier
  • jubal
  • ezrierin
    • +2
      ezrierin  

    • Inanna was the first Goddess of civilization. She did not have a problem with transsexuals, she did not have a problem with homosexuals or straights. 8000 years later a guy named Jesus (Greek translation) never said a word against homosexuals. So after 10,000 years of civilization, here come our contemporary conservative Christians that hate homosexuals. I think it is clear that the perverse irregularity in human history is the conservative Christians of today.

    • 1 year ago
  • iLoveOlivier
    • 0
      iLoveOlivier  
    • ezrierin:

      Jesus never openly scorned practicing homosexuals, because to do so is wrong. When someone loves another they don't publicly condemn them; they wish well for them. They pray for them. I'm a conservative Catholic but I don't hate anyone, let alone homosexuals. Why should I hate them? Every single person has a God-given dignity, even if they act immoral and make bad decisions. We all feel pain and joy, and that very human condition connects us to each other.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • notrepublican
    • +3
      notrepublican  

    • Christians at some point did all sorts of things. I don't care what Christians did, do, will do, or believe. All I care is they keep there superstitious little fingers away from voting booths, and leave peoples rights alone.

    • 1 year ago
  • brit50
  • H3ADLINE
    • +9
      H3ADLINE  
    • brit50:

      So our freedom to not be a Christian is a Christian moral or belief? Funny, I had always thought that was frowned upon with all the burning at the stake, inquisitions and being "sent to hell." In a comment below, you were trying to tell someone they had no right to speak against Christianity! I don't think any freedom-phobic person like yourself should be advising other people on the founding of the United States. You clearly have no idea about the Enlightenment principles that structured this country, and believe some ahistorical tripe instead. Show me in the Constitution where is says this is Christian nation that bases its laws on Christianity. Good luck. Here's a little excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams while president and unanimously approved by the congress of 1797:

      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

      But what does John Adams know about America, right?

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
    • +2
      littlwarrior  
    • brit50:

      Ha! ya know its funny that people still buy that crap. News flash, our founding fathers were deists, most of them beleived that there was a god but he didnt care. Our "revolution" was spawned by the enlightenment, the entire movemnet was about moving away from a religious state. Ignorance makes me giggle.

    • 1 year ago
  • Naumadd
  • Amanda_Marie
  • unimatrix0
    • +8
      unimatrix0  

    • For the most coherent account of Christ's teachings on sexuality one should check out Tolstoy's "Gospel in Brief"

      Biblical scholars will know that any sexual congress is frowned upon by Christ. He explicitly teaches that one should abstain from sexual intercourse because sexual desire is the source of so much pain.

      About marriage, Christ teaches that you should marry if you must have sex, and you should never divorce. He is fairly explicit about having only one sexual partner for life, again because sexual desire is such a dangerous and pernicious force.

      He says nothing about homosexuality, and one may infer that Christ saw any sexual expression, hetero or homo, to be a sign of weakness, and to be avoided if at all possible.

      Of course most Christians will not know this, having failed to do any real scholarly research into the subject. They just parrot back what they hear in church, using Jesus to justify their own narrow-minded prejudices and conceits.

    • 1 year ago
  • vixxxen618
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • unimatrix0:

      Its sounds more like you are echoing Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. I could be wrong and would be interested if you could list verses where Jesus speaks of such things (except for the divorce part). Even if they are Apocrypha.

    • 1 year ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -6
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • unimatrix0:

      Christ himself did not say that homosexuality was wrong, but it is in the new testament.

      "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

      Romans 1:26, 27

      And obviously any good christian would know that

      "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

      2 Timothy 3:16

      I know you have a completely different belief system than me, but im just defending mine

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      The new testament was written by men who came long after Jesus already died. Mathew Mark Luke and John did not write the gospels...other people did....and many of the letters that are in the new testament also were written long after Paul died. You have much to learn wipper snapper.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • DRudeBoy
  • existentialist
    • -5
      existentialist  

    • There are Christians today that condone gay marriage and I don't see why it is surprising that some Christians in the past also condoned gay marriage. This in no way changes the fact that the bible clearly states its anti-homosexual views and that some Christian fundamentalists adhere to those views. Telling a Christian who is against gay marriage that they need to reconsider their views because of this evidence, is like telling a vegetarian that they should eat fish, because some guy in the past who identified himself as a vegetarian ate fish. Or saying that the president should use nuclear weapons because past presidents have. The argument this article tries to make is fallacious.

    • 1 year ago
  • vixxxen618
  • existentialist
    • +1
      existentialist  
    • vixxxen618:

      Some Christians probably only adhere to the new testament, just as some are okay with gay marriage. If you are going where I think you are going, the new testament also has verses against gays. (1 cor 6: 9)
      It is pointless to argue for homosexual marriage within a Christian context. What we should be concerned about is why so many conservative Christians are in places of power in the first place.

    • 1 year ago
  • vixxxen618
    • +1
      vixxxen618  
    • existentialist:

      1 Corinthians 6:9

      "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

      1 Corinthians 6:10

      "nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

      Don't see a lot of Christians trying to withhold rights from people that drink. Or people that cheat on their spouses.

      Nice double standard.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • vixxxen618:

      Okay. Some Christians have double standards. Whats your point? Double standards wouldn't even be an issue if people could be convinced to drop the superstition of Christianity in the first place. Its is pointless to try to justify anything within a Christian or any other fictional context.

    • 1 year ago
  • vixxxen618
  • jubal
  • mik661
    • +4
      mik661  

    • Christianity in the time of Christ and in the early years has no resemblance to modern religion. far as I am concerned the forming of the Catholic church in its modern form has as much legitimacy as the "Revelations of the Lord" spewed out by the Mormons.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +3
      jubal  
    • mik661:

      The Catholic Church corrupted Christianity turning it into the religion to form an empire around. It destroyed the truth that would have set us all free. That there is no such thing as sin in Gods eyes, that he loves us and wishes that none of us should perish. We die from our own ignorance. The natural law is perfect. We reap what we sew. There is no need for an eye for an eye...that is why every man is blind.

      Because we are all seeking to have law give us liberty when true liberty is anarchy founded in love.

    • 1 year ago
  • brit50
    • -9
      brit50  

    • This is completely incorrect. The Bible speaks directly against same sex marriage. Why do you make a point that it is "conservative commentary" at fault?

    • 1 year ago
  • flyingkick
    • +8
      flyingkick  
    • brit50:

      You, brit50, are absolutely wrong.

      The Bible does not "speak directly against same sex marriage."
      It only mentions marriage as being between a man and a woman. It does not say same sex marriage is wrong.

      Feel free to try and find a passage that proves me wrong.

    • 1 year ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • timetide
    • +2
      timetide  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      it speaks out aginst heterosexuality over 365 times and only mentions homosexuality about 6 times. the majoirty of those times is in Levitikis with only one or two mentions after the sermon on the mount. soooo.... the bible has a lot more to say about how hetero's live and interact than homo's.

    • 1 year ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • flyingkick
    • +3
      flyingkick  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Yeah, but the claim was the bible 'speaks directly against same sex marriage,' and it certainly does not.

      The Bible does speak directly against divorce though. It basically says it's OK to divorce if adultery is committed. But, many Christians divorce for reasons other than adultery. There are actually more passages about divorce than there are about homosexuality. But for some reason divorce for non-adultery reasons are OK, while homosexuality is not.
      Divorce is far more destructive to family values than homosexuality.
      How does that make sense?

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • jubal
    • +3
      jubal  
    • timetide:

      Leviticus is a law for the tribe of levites only because they were the priestly tribe of the twelve tribes. They had to be extra holy in order to serve in the temple so they had their own set of rules.

    • 1 year ago
  • randallr01
  • randallr01
    • +4
      randallr01  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      You're DAMN RIGHT the bible "speaks out against sexuality!" The bible is nothing but a clump of prudish texts concerned with ancient ideas & old "science." It's NOT DIVINE. Get it through your superstitious head.

    • 1 year ago
  • Stoneyroad
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • brit50
    • -5
      brit50  
    • flyingkick:

      The mentioning of marriage between a man and a woman is what is definitively stated as marriage. According to the Bible that is the only type of marriage that exists. My bad, the Bible indirectly speaks out against same sex marriage.

    • 1 year ago
  • brit50
  • brit50
    • -2
      brit50  
    • jubal:

      Ok so it was alright for everyone else right. You overcomplicate things by twisting words and giving false reasoning. We are not extra holy, so I guess its okay.

    • 1 year ago
  • brit50
  • jubal
  • H3ADLINE
  • derk
    • +6
      derk  

    • This just brings up a classic problem with The Bible: the fact that it contradicts itself. Upon reading this I immediately remembered feeling the same way as a child sitting in Church: helpless, confused, angry.

      Until religious leaders can take a black line to Leviticus, they will be part of the problem.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • brit50
  • H3ADLINE
    • +5
      H3ADLINE  
    • brit50:

      Respect is earned, not presumed. While yes, we should present a general respect for strangers in the public square, it would be wrong to assert that we have to respect all possible beliefs, too. Maybe the belief is despicable and contributes to the harm of other people. Why should I respect that? Why should anyone? All too often, people use their "hurt feelings" as a shield against criticism of their ideas. Religion has gone too long getting a free pass. No idea is outside the realm of criticism or satire.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • timetide
    • +1
      timetide  
    • brit50:

      I have to concur (something I thought i would never do with you). Despite the fact that its a political tool, despite the fact people use it to further their agenda and its responsable for most of the problems in western history, it is still a religious book. its a symbol of their faith and they can worship it if they want. I don't own one, i'm not a christian, but to destroy it would make the person who destroys it no better than the Christians trying to organize a burn a koran day.

    • 1 year ago
  • Stoneyroad
    • +6
      Stoneyroad  

    • 1st time i've felt "enlightened" by religious history.
      But i doubt todays Christians will see this as an "Ah-Ha" moment.

      I Googled Serge & Bacchus, And foud this is like an ancient Open Secret.

      Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus.

    • 1 year ago
  • H3ADLINE
    • +7
      H3ADLINE  

    • Marriage has been many things over the years, from property agreement to child-rearing contract. Sometimes between a man and many wives, or (rarely) a woman and many husbands. The argument that "it's always been the way it is now and therefore it always must be that way" is not only inaccurate but logically ridiculous. You could argue that about almost anything. People have always murdered, therefore we should not change that? What about slavery? That existed from the beginning of human civilization until just a century ago, with many forms still existing to this day (I hope you're loving those every-day low prices you get from slave labor). But it is funny to point out that, no, marriage has not always been a platonic, child-optional union of "one man and one woman (who can divorce at any time for any reason)."

      To be fair, religion doesn't have anything to do with facts or evidence, so I guess it would be a little late to start worrying about it now.

    • 1 year ago
  • fun_size
    • +3
      fun_size  

    • This isnt really a surprise. Early Christians were little more than a separate sect of Judaism. It wasnt until Christians became the majority of the population under the late Roman Empire/Dark Ages that the Holy Roman Church began to alter and rearrange the bible to suit their own needs. The "Word of God" has been rewritten and changed by man so many times i sincerely doubt even God himself would recognize it anymore...

    • 1 year ago
  • Omnomynous
    • -2
      Omnomynous  

    • Alternet, I'll give them credit.. Every now and then they post something by Chris Hedges who happens to be a brilliant Christian, for all I know he wrote this one, though I doubt it & I'm not going to read it on principal.

      Other times their articles are completely hateful, antagonistic, and almost bitter towards any form of religion. I'm pretty sure this is just another attack on Christianity, which is about as right as trying to deliberately insult and degrade atheists. Not cool either way.

      It's long since known the "brotherly" love going back to before the time of Jesus, it's known till this day a man can feel love for a man, just as women can feel for women, completely platonic deep love for one another.

      Going past that notion is just insulting.

      Ever hear the expression; "Bros' before Hos'"?

      There is a reason for that expression it's not gay, and it has a lot to do with the fact that plenty of men have been fuct over by the opposite sex and don't trust them. (and NO responding in that fashion to abuse does not make one sexist, it's preventive posturing, notice it doesn't say women are the devil mistreat them)

      Maybe it was "accepted" (which I highly doubt), it would be at the very least considered much like adultery (a stone-able offense), and although Jesus himself wouldn't stone them, he would urge them to repent and let them know it wasn't cool.... Maybe heal them or something.

      Anyway a Greek or Roman "Christian" coming along after the fact and mingling their homo-indulgent culture with Christianity has long since been popular look at the Catholic church, and those guys fit about the most loose possible definition of Christianty a pedophile could have.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
    • +3
      toyotabedzrock  
    • Omnomynous:

      An icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai illustrates this point. It shows two robed Christian saints getting married.

      Their pronubus (official witness, or “BEST MAN”) is none other than JESUS CHRIST.

      Christianity was just starting during the decline of the roman empire btw.

      The title Alternet picked was a bit more negative which is why i cut off that part of the title, hopping that more people would read it.

      The author is

      Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He can be reached at (his .edu email address)

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • fun_size
  • brit50
  • toyotabedzrock
  • timetide
  • flyingkick
    • +3
      flyingkick  
    • toyotabedzrock:

      I highly recommend Foucault's "History of Sexuality" and/or "The Birth of the Clinic."

      He goes into how homosexuality fluctuates from being considered normal to mental illness and back and forth throughout history.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • toyotabedzrock:

      It was Paul...he was a self hating Jewish Homosexual who used to kill Christians for a living. When he got struck down by Christ and asked "Why are you persecuting me and my brothers?"

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
more from Community:
from the community

top videos