So, during the times of the Inquisition in Europe, when religion ruled with an iron fist such that none dare sin on pain of death, gay marriage and civil unions were actively encouraged? I wonder how present day religious anti-gays will take to this news? Yeah, we certainly have evolved socially since then.
Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe
Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.
“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize,” Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. “And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”
I would not wish marriage on my gay friends. No one has been able to show me the advantage for either person. The advantage is totaly for the state and church. Why whould any reasonable person put themselves in that position.
#1….the catholic church never performed gay ceremonies….the professor of your catholic school who said that was obviously a misinformed idiot. You can not take what someone tells you seriously. you have to go do some research and find out for yourself if it is true or not.
#31 – KevinL
“…”respect” and “accept” are to (sic) vastly different concepts. I respect the person, I don’t accept the action.”
Not only un-American but illogical, too.
If you respect the person, then you, by definition, respect that person’s rights, even if those include rights that you do not choose to claim for yourself, such as marrying someone of your own biological sex. Conversely, denying to others a right to act in a manner or fashion that has zero impact on your rights, simply because you disagree with it – that is totally disrespectful, being as it is a denial of freedom to another.
Myself, I am under no obligation, legal, social or otherwise, to “respect” members of any particular group – but in order that I may live my life in a way undictated by judgemental others, I must first accept the right of others to live their lives without my approval. This is of course within the bounds of behaviors that do not negatively impact the rights or freedoms of other citizens, and the individual’s choice of with whom to establish a formal domestic arrangement has zero impact on my life or yours. Any objections – such as yours – are purely subjective and personal, and you’re welcome to them. But you have no right to impose your moral judgement on others in the form of laws dictating others’ lives when they have no detrimental effect on yours.
.: You’re under no obligation, social or legal, to respect anyone else’s lifestyle choice if it doesn’t impact yours. But you are obliged to accept others’ right to live a different lifestyle from that which you just happen to approve of. If you think that freedom is only for those who live as you do, then you’re a judgemental, anti-American hypocrite.