Warren is an ignoramus. On MSNBC saying for 5,000 years marriage has been defined as

[LittleApple81]

being between a man and a woman in ALL religions. HE IS AN IGNORAMUS!!!! What kind of religious history books has he read? Not even in the Muslim religion right now it is defined like between one man and one woman. There are so many religions that have not defined it that way.

[LostinVA]

1. I thought that, too

[rockymountaindem]

2. Yeah. And for most of those years marriage was defined as a business arrangement

in many cultures and men were considered free to do their own thing afterwards.

[libnnc]

3. The late John Boswell proved that "theory" wrong

But I guess Warren doesn't read books that are published by university presses.

Too many big words and end notes...

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Boswell is highly controversial and his scolarship is...

suspect.

Granted many of his critics show bias and criticize with invective, but at this point he hasn't "proven" anything except that adelphopoiesis (or, rather, homosexual bonding of some aort) did exist throughout history)

[libnnc]

22. what was 'suspect' about his scholarship?

[TreasonousBastard]

26. You're asking me? It's just that other scholars have...

found more sources and taken a closer look at his sources. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to come down on any one side.

The argument is amongst the experts, but it seems to be a raging one and nothing is "proven" until they come to more of an agreement. At any rate, while there is a lot of historical reference to homosexuality, there seems to be little to actual homosexual marriage.

As I mentioned in other posts, marriage through the ages seems to have been primarily a mechanism to assign paternity and little else. Somewhere around the 7th century the shurch stepped and fooled around with the idea, but I don't know how many significant changes they made. Then, in the 19th Century all hell seems to have broken loose when the West abandoned arranged marriages and all sorts of legalisms started surrounding it.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that Boswell was more of an advocate for his position than a scholar. Warren, at least, doesn't pretend to be a scholer, just opinionated.

[libnnc]

30. that's pretty much BS on all points

John Boswell was one of the pioneers of LGBT History. He was a scholar AND his WORK provided the basis for an entire discipline.

His professional credentials were rock solid. You don't know what you're talking about.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Take it up with the historians arguing aagainst him.

[libnnc]

32. the historians who argued against him had their own agendas

and after his death, they were pretty much laughed at

[racaulk]

4. He should google Brigham Young. n/t

[Rambis]

5. In US

it was the church trying to restrict inter racial marriage.

[liberal N proud]

6. Huckleberry was on The Daily Show last week saying the same thing

Stewart corrected him very quickly but that is the Religious way of selling the one man, one woman relationship mantra.

[SuperTrouper]

7. He is a Neanderthal if he is spousing that kind of statements

[jody]

8. Interesting opinion. Do you have a link to a credible source identifying a religion that defined

marriage as between same-sex couples?

Even if there is no religion that recognized same-sex marriage before modern times, I would say so-what?

[LittleApple81]

11. No, I don't. But my point is that what he is saying is totally untrue. And he spouts this junk as

a matter of fact. And the woman interviewing him didn't contradict him, which points to THE HUGE PROBLEM we have with our ignorant corporate talking heads.

[jody]

14. I understand but if one could cite a specific religion that recognized same-sex marriage it would be

very persuasive.

[SwampG8r]

12. in many native american tribes it was not uncommon

and in others it would get you burned alive

[jody]

16. OK but what specific "native american tribes" recognized same-sex marriage? n/t

[SwampG8r]

18. i dont have my deep reference stuff here with me

but i believe the commanche and perhaps some southern lakota didnt get all worked up about it
of course they also required one member of such a union to actually live as a member of the opposite sex and take on the traditional roles

[jody]

19. Thanks, n/t

[kwassa]

27. Not religion, but some societies did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males may also do similar things. However, these acts of union are viewed as acts of forming sisterhood and brotherhood rather than a marriage.<10>

In Japan, Shudo (衆道 shudō), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo is analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia).

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.<11>

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal

[jody]

28. Thanks but marriage is different from same-sex union. Apparently, same-sex unions did occur but

same-sex marriage was extremely rare according to the wiki link you provided.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Not an ignoramus

Just a liar.

[jobendorfer]

10. Pardon him, Theodotus ...

... he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature"
--George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"

[opihimoimoi]

13. Get that Pompous POS off the stage...Warren is using religion as a tool to FOOL

Obama picks him as a show of working together....

Shoulda got 7 seperate religious Leaders and let them pull straws....No controversy there as all would have equal op

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Actuially, for most history...

largely a mechanism for insuring bloodlines when bloodlines were important. And, to some extent, to keep fathers around. For most of history you only got married to raise children, and romantic love in marriage, or even choosing your own mate, was laughed at. Romantic love, if it existed at all, was for outside of marriage. Or for fools.

Probably the most extreme example of this is ancient Sparta where every male was expected to be married and procreate little Spartans, but his real real relationships were amongst his buddies in the military. Even though the homosexual relationships were often more important than the heterosexuals ones, no one ever considered homosexual marriage-- there was just no point to it.

[asjr]

20. He is a sanctimonious prick!

[JaneQPublic]

21. Often in history, marriage was one man and MANY women.

It was also one man and one chattel, that is, a woman sold to her husband by her father.

In some cultures at different times in history, marriage was NO man and NO woman, if the couple in question was of different races, or for that matter, the same race but both black, as was the case during American slavery.

I really don't think Pastor Rick wants to look too closely at history as a basis for how we should define marriage today. In reality, the definition of marriage has been changed quite dramatically over time, and the more recent movement to include same-sex marriage conforms quite well to the overarching pattern of change that the definition of marriage has undergone over the centuries.

[ljm2002]

24. Nicely stated!

Now the question is, how do we get this factual information out there in the form of sound bites that our pathetic media might be able to come up with once in awhile to challenge these untruthful claims of "5,000 years of history / 1 man, 1 woman" claptrap???

[WeDidIt]

25. Do you know why polygamy was acceptable for so long?

The consequences of war.

You send off young men to die in wars. Those who survive the wars are what gets to breed, but you are left with far more women than men. Answer: Polygamy.

When you come down to it, it was a survival methodology. It was only after fewer and fewer men in a given population were constantly dying in wars that monogamy became all the rage.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Exactly

[WeDidIt]

23. For most of that 5000 years, marriage WAS defined as a union between a man and a woman,

and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman.

No wonder this prick joined in cause with the Mormons.

[Autumn]

29. Wow, then we should go back to when

marriage was between one man and a whole lot of women. Makes about as much fucking sense as he does. What a fucking asshole.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Randi Rhodes has been reading the Bible on the air

pointing out all the Old Testament scriptures that prove that marriage "as God defined it between one man and one woman" didn't even exist in the Bible, the alleged Word of God Himself. Scriptures about multiple wives, the circumstances under which divorce is acceptable to the Lord, etc.

[Generator]

35. Yep he is an idiot

Marriage as we know it has only been around a couple hundred years AT MOST. It used to be between a man and his property. Women were property which is where I now pronounce you MAN and wife come from. Wife is a job description. Man remains a whole person. And the sacred GOD part came a lot later. It was about property and money and yes, children-but mostly passing down the loot to the children. But only for the richest in society. The poor didn't need to be married. They had nothing.