Comments on: Corvino: Always and everywhere?

By: David in Houston

David in Houston — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:05:40 +0000

The other argument I hear is that “traditional marriage” hasn’t changed in 2,000 years. The problem with that argument is that the sanctity of traditional marriage did change 60 years ago. For 1,940 years the tradition was that marriage was between a man and a woman… of the same race. The reason for this sudden change? The enlightenment of society. In other words, social progress. It’s this same social progress that demands that gay couples be given the same right to marriage.

By: Lenworth O'neal Poyser

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:12:03 +0000

Well, I might be a little immature for this thought, but I think were attacking this Gay marriage argument in the wrong way. All of your points make sense and rely on fact, but most equal marriage opponents don’t use fact, they use the Bible which is a book of faith.

Equal Marriage opponents don’t think we deserve to marry because they are still convinced we are choosing to not be heterosexual.

If we somehow proved to the world we have no choice in are sexual attraction, it would be a lot harder for them to keep our rights from us.

Of course some say complications would arise from having a proven way of detecting gay people, but science and fact always trump the Bible, because you can’t deny evidence thats right infront of your face. (Well I guess religous fundamentalists deny science and fact a lot as well anyway lol)

By: Ginelle

Ginelle — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:30:52 +0000

An excellent inciteful and well researched piece John Corvino. It is unfortunate that so much of Gay history has been destroyed, hidden or not even recorded. Any of us that have grown up previous to the last couple of decades, well know the feelings of loneliness and shame that we were subjected to should we take the step and come out as being Gay. Without the resources we have nowadays, many of us did not know that there were others like us, we did not know that we could and were able to form lasting relationships, even marriage with a same-sex partner. Michael mentioned in an earlier comment that John Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” sounds like it might be a very worthwhile read, one that I think I may purchase myself for my home library. Thanks for that Michael, and again thanks to John for your excellent piece.

By: Trace Eggers

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:18:33 +0000

John, just when we think that you’ve become as batty as Ruby-Sachs; you come up with this gem.

Very, very, very well written.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:26:03 +0000

I would like to point out, as some substantiation for one of the poster’s secret library conspiracy theory that it wasn’t until the publication of “The Exorcist” in the late ’70’s that virtually every non-underground printed document (book, newspaper, magazine, etc. etc. etc. including radio and television) were censored by the Catholic Church through various boards of “decency”.
I often wonder how Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” made it past the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the printed word–perhaps someone could enlighten me.
However, I digress.
Virtually EVERY document/book/whatever associated with the Olde Religion had been “christianized” for publication, creating the illusion that the Olde Religion had anything at all to do with christianity and/or the Catholic Church, when, in fact, it predated both by a few millenia–give or take.
So, just like twenty years ago, the idea of legal same-sex marriage would have seemed impossible, it was a bit over thirty years ago that REAL family traditions of REAL witchcraft, the Olde Religion, etc., were finally able to be printed for public consumption.
Previously, since the burning of the Library at Alexandria, and the near genocide of our people–known as the Burning Times, which has very little to do with the witch hunts of circa early colonial America. There goes that christianization of history again–trapped between the warring factions of the Crusades, Olde Religion Trads unpolluted by christianization were passed down verbally/direct instruction.
So, yes, Virginia, times do change.
It’s time for the breeder mundane judeo/christian wombats to wake up and smell the end of their lying, brutal DELUSIONAL era.
After all, it IS the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
May we shortly forget the dismal age of Pisces we leave behind.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:25:26 +0000

One quibble with your first point. Marriage has not always been exclusively heterosexual, nor has same-sex marriage been particularly “exotic”.

As John Boswell documents so thoroughly in his book “Same-Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe”, the ancient Romans and Greeks had same-sex unions. The Roman Catholic church even had a liturgy for a few centuries for same-sex untions. Heck, they even have what can be considered patron saints for same-sex unions (Serge and Bacchus, I think). It’s an excellent book that I highly recommend, but it reads like a college text book.

By: matt87

matt87 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:02:49 +0000

Did they ever consider that a desire to be married is actually a desire to conform to traditional values? The only difference between us and them is conservatives don’t like our relationships.

By: Wayne M.

Wayne M. — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:56:03 +0000

For all the rhetoric that we have heard from the religious right (including Protestant fundamentalists, Roman Catholics and orthodox Muslims and Jews) about saving marriage, the truth is that they are not talking about saving marriage. They are talking about saving a definition of marriage.

The fact is that the definition of marriage has changed over history. Early Biblical marriage for example was one man and several wives. Only recently has equality of partners in marriage been generally accepted in society.

If we want to save marriage– and not just a definition of marriage– all of us need to work at building up support systems to help people prepare for marriage and get needed assistance when a marriage is in trouble.

THIS IS ALSO A KEY CHALLENGE TO OUR OWN LGBT COMMUNITY.

By: Jacquemar

Jacquemar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:11:35 +0000

Corvino… this was an EXCELLENT piece!

The “always and forever” argument, no matter what one is applying it to, seems to fail because there always seems to be some historical anomaly somewhere.

The principle case I was aware of was the Native American “berdache” tradition, which is not so exotic. Not only did some Native Americans marry men to men, but they venerated these homosexuals as war charms, calling them “Three Spirited” (man, woman, and the Divine). Isn’t it so convenient that gay marriage opponents have just happened to overlook contradictions to their arguments?

This opinion article made me want to stand up and cheer, though. Finally someone eloquently wrote what so many of us amateur historians have been thinking!

By: Drewski

Drewski — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:04:23 +0000

Montrealbren, it’s not paranoid to suggest that the vatican has ample documentation of that which they seek to demonize. Hell, look at all the enabling that went on to avoid dealing with rampant pedophila.

Yeah, Jessica, you’re definitely right that there are millions of Americans who will never be OK with men marrying men. However, when you pin them with one simple question–”Why is somebody else’s marriage or bedroom any of your business?”–they do squirm. When forced to stay on point, and not go on tangents about goats on bridal registries, honeymoon sodomy connected to al-Qaeda recruiting, etc, they get beaten down to mush. Of course they still want to stay in denial, but they’re sufficiently traumatized by their trip to MYOB-land that they at least shut up and keep their muttering too low to hear. As it should be.

Much as the Vatican is intent on locking up the truth, it sucks for them that they don’t have exclusive control over all historical documents from pre-Renaissance Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. Whether Roman or Byzantine, there definitely were church-sanctioned same-sex bonds directly comparable to marriage. The biggest difference (aside from reproduction) is that no free man of the time who married anybody was going to be considered chattel.