Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Mad_Michael]

Let me guess... you watched Tutor on HBO and now you are an expert on 16th century British marriage customs and legal constitutionalism?

You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death. But don't let that get in the way of your righteous rant.

Tutor, is an aging line of jet trainers.......

Tudor, is an extinct line of kings......

I've been known to mis-spell Plantagenet too!

But technically speaking, the Tudor line isn't entirely extinct - that claim is properly carried by the Stuart line that was deposed and replaced with William and Mary. I do believe there is some descendent of 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' kicking around (who represents the Tudor claim) who is the 'official pretender' to the British crown.

For anyone who reads my posts, I never use any spellcheckers at all. To err is human.

[guyser]

I do not judge others, however I should not be expected to support behavior that I disagree with.

Oh stop will you? Talk about a hypocritical statement.

[Mad_Michael]

I do not judge others, however I should not be expected to support behavior that I disagree with.

And The Kapitan typed this with a straight face, all huffing and puffing (and clutching his pearls) in all seriousness - apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy and/or blatant lie he was spewing.

No, The Kapitan obviously never judges people - except those people (mostly homos of course) whose behaviour The Kapitan judges negatively. They are either 'not people' or just don't count and its not a judgement at all, because The Kapitan has said he doesn't judge others and The Kapitan knows what he says and says what he knows, so that's that!

[guyser]

I do not judge others, however I should not be expected to support behavior that I disagree with.

And The Kapitan typed this with a straight face, all huffing and puffing (and clutching his pearls) in all seriousness - apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy and/or blatant lie he was spewing.

No, The Kapitan obviously never judges people - except those people (mostly homos of course) whose behaviour The Kapitan judges negatively. They are either 'not people' or just don't count and its not a judgement at all, because The Kapitan has said he doesn't judge others and The Kapitan knows what he says and says what he knows, so that's that!

That hit the nail on the head.

[ScottSA]

You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death.

You are wildly wrong about that, actually, not Kapitan. Henry the teacher Tudor didn't just get married again because his wife died; he either died a whack of them proactively or divorced them, after divorcing himself and the country from the Whore of Rome who was altogether too stingy in the anullment department. To claim that Henry's serial marriages were typical and common occurences is either dishonest or the product of glaring ignorance. I daresay, given the *ahem* "typo" you made, that you're an honest man.

[M.Dancer]

You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death.

You are wildly wrong about that, actually, not Kapitan. Henry the teacher Tudor didn't just get married again because his wife died; he either died a whack of them proactively or divorced them, after divorcing himself and the country from the Whore of Rome who was altogether too stingy in the anullment department. To claim that Henry's serial marriages were typical and common occurences is either dishonest or the product of glaring ignorance. I daresay, given the *ahem* "typo" you made, that you're an honest man.

How many times was Eleanor of Aquitaine married?

Just twice? Divorced from her hubby the King of France? By order of the Pope?

How about Henry the First...twice? How many times was his Daughter married? Twice?

Henry's problems divorcing had more to do with who he married than the theological issues. And that's to be expected when marriages are political.

[ScottSA]

You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death.

You are wildly wrong about that, actually, not Kapitan. Henry the teacher Tudor didn't just get married again because his wife died; he either died a whack of them proactively or divorced them, after divorcing himself and the country from the Whore of Rome who was altogether too stingy in the anullment department. To claim that Henry's serial marriages were typical and common occurences is either dishonest or the product of glaring ignorance. I daresay, given the *ahem* "typo" you made, that you're an honest man.

How many times was Eleanor of Aquitaine married?

Just twice? Divorced from her hubby the King of France? By order of the Pope?

Henry's problems divorcing had more to do with who he married than the theological issues. And that's to be expected when marriages are political.

The point is that Henry's escapades are not in any way representative of 16th century marriage patterns as Mad Mikey would have us believe. He apparently knows as much about 16th century England as he does about 19th century Marxism.

Btw, Eleanor didn't live in the 16th century, she managed to machinate an annulment, and her galavanting was hardly representative of either 12th or 16th century female behaviour.

[Mad_Michael]

As for 16th century England, it is to be noted that Henry VIII suffered politically far more for his break with the Church of Rome than he ever did for all of his 'wife troubles'.

In other words, the rank and file of English society at the time didn't seem to care at all about Henry's wives. Indeed, I suspect half of them supported Henry's desire for a legal male heir (and willing to do whatever it takes to get one). A few well-born women might have died for the 'cause', but the alternative was perceived to be Civil War (as per the prescendent set in the 12th century with the coronation of Matilda/Maud and the ensuing 'time of troubles').

The English society of the 16th century was far more excised by the break with Rome for which Thomas More (amongst others) was a martyr.

[Mad_Michael]

How many times was Eleanor of Aquitaine married?

Just twice? Divorced from her hubby the King of France? By order of the Pope?

How about Henry the First...twice? How many times was his Daughter married? Twice?

Henry's problems divorcing had more to do with who he married than the theological issues. And that's to be expected when marriages are political.

Yes, it wouldn't be too difficult to list all the multiple marriages of the English kings (and queens) of the medieval latter medieval era.

Given that the average life expectancy in 16th century England was 35 years.

[M.Dancer]

Btw, Eleanor didn't live in the 16th century, she managed to machinate an annulment, and her galavanting was hardly representative of either 12th or 16th century female behaviour.

I do believe the poster is talking about the aristocracy......the peasantry, having no property to contract in marriage may have had even more plastic arrangements.....

[Mad_Michael]

Btw, Eleanor didn't live in the 16th century, she managed to machinate an annulment, and her galavanting was hardly representative of either 12th or 16th century female behaviour.

I do believe the poster is talking about the aristocracy......the peasantry, having no property to contract in marriage may have had even more plastic arrangements.....

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

As you rightly point out, historically speaking, marriage has always been most closely related to issues of property rights and the poor don't have property and thus, didn't need or benefit from marriage.

Btw, Elenor (probably spelt wrong) of Aquitaine is one of my favourite historical characters. What a colourful family she raised!

[M.Dancer]

Btw, Eleanor didn't live in the 16th century, she managed to machinate an annulment, and her galavanting was hardly representative of either 12th or 16th century female behaviour.

I do believe the poster is talking about the aristocracy......the peasantry, having no property to contract in marriage may have had even more plastic arrangements.....

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

As you rightly point out, historically speaking, marriage has always been most closely related to issues of property rights and the poor don't have property and thus, didn't need or benefit from marriage.

Btw, Elenor (probably spelt wrong) of Aquitaine is one of my favourite historical characters. What a colourful family she raised!

anomaly don't get involved in these discussions....

[daniel]

...anomaly don't get involved in these discussions....

Working 9 to 5, 5 days a week with vacation is an anomoly. What other animal on this planet does this? The human animal was meant to live in the woods hunting and gathering.

[ScottSA]

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

[M.Dancer]

...anomaly don't get involved in these discussions....

Working 9 to 5, 5 days a week with vacation is an anomoly. What other animal on this planet does this? The human animal was meant to live in the woods hunting and gathering.

Foragers. Except they don't get vacations......except for bears....but they don't get 2 days out of 7 to rest....

[M.Dancer]

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

The vast majority of marriages in Europe prior to the 16th century were 'common law". The were not witnessed by priests.

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

You are quite amusing with your sweeping statements.

I can't be bothered to discuss or debate this topic (or any other) with you, so feel free to keep pounding away. It is nothing if not entertaining.

[Mad_Michael]

The vast majority of marriages in Europe prior to the 16th century were 'common law". The were not witnessed by priests.

Shhh!

It is way more fun to watch ScottSA make his pronouncements!

[ScottSA]

...anomaly don't get involved in these discussions....

Working 9 to 5, 5 days a week with vacation is an anomoly. What other animal on this planet does this? The human animal was meant to live in the woods hunting and gathering.

There are a number of assumptions built into this, most notably the assumption that no fundamental qualitative difference between humans and animals exists, and that's a big one...or that all animals live in the woods, which is a wrong one. But if comparison to animals was the only viable measurement, one might just as well say something like this: "Having sentience is an anomaly. What other animal on the planet does this? The human animal was meant to prance about stupidly, entirely oblivious to the fact of his existence."

[Mad_Michael]

The human animal was meant to live in the woods hunting and gathering.

So who devised this particular plan?

[ScottSA]

Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class.

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

You are quite amusing with your sweeping statements.

I can't be bothered to discuss or debate this topic (or any other) with you, so feel free to keep pounding away. It is nothing if not entertaining.

Yes, lets chalk up 16th century marriage, the 13th century 'middle class,' and Marxian theory as three subjects you'd best avoid "debating."

[M.Dancer]

The continuation of common-law marriage practices

Despite the Marriage Act of 1753 ordinary people still tended to keep marriage informal-many felt that the

state and the church had no business in their private lives.

One informal ceremony was the Gretna Green wedding. The Marriage Act applied to England and Wales, so

crossing into Scotland, where you only had to have your consents witnessed, became popular. As the railways

opened up, 'package tours' offering bed and breakfast for 'celebration and consummation' were developed.

In Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire those who had gone through some kind of common-law rite were said

to be "married on the carpet and the banns up the chimney" or "married but not churched".

In almost very part of Britain the term "living tally" established itself:

They're livin' tally

They've made a tally bargain

They're noant wed, they're nobit livin' tally

While the origins of the term tally are obscure the term became widespread in the nineteenth century. It

conveyed the notion of a definite, if conditional contract or "bargain", based on the consent of both parties

and protecting the women in the case of motherhood. Studies of rural areas have found as many as one in

seven couples "living tally".

http://www.marriedornot.org.uk/PDF/CommonLawMarriage.pdf

[Mad_Michael]

Yes, lets chalk up 16th century marriage, the 13th century 'middle class,' and Marxian theory as three subjects you'd best avoid "debating."

You can chalk up anything you like.

Feel free to make a list. At the very least it might give you something to keep you out of trouble.

[ScottSA]

Yes, lets chalk up 16th century marriage, the 13th century 'middle class,' and Marxian theory as three subjects you'd best avoid "debating."

You can chalk up anything you like.

Feel free to make a list. At the very least it might give you something to keep you out of trouble.

Ummm...I'm already making a list. Obviously list-making is another topic for you to avoid, since you can't seem to identify the list I'm already making when it's right in front of your eyes. Here's a hint: if you're going to get your information from Google U and half-remembered shows on the history channel, you'd do well not to mock other folks on the topics you're a little iffy on. Btw, what do you think of the current Windsoar dynasty? Do you think the Spendzers should get compensation for the death of Dina?

[FascistLibertarian]

Yeah well the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation (and not an act) did not occur until far after these events, so they dont matter.