Gay Unions, An Enduring Tradition

[Rue]

Quite right. A little like the revisionist notion that the saxons simply immigrated to Britain in peace in the 5th and 6th centuries instead of doing what the folks living at the time said they did, which was practice rapine and pillage and, by some accounts, genocide. The revisionism was all based on one excavation, which found different cultures living side by side. They lived side by side alright, but that was because they lived during different time periods. Probably after one side burned the houses and enslaved the women of the other side. But it makes for nice comfort food in these immigrantish times, even if it's pure fabrication.

This particular homosexual revisionist myth is easily dealt with here:

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html

Even the author of the nonsense that Morris cites adds a caveat:

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

Sure, but as he very well knows, had they been caught inserting bodily parts in each other's rectums, they would have only been accepted in little tiny pieces:

Although the Middle Ages, extending from about the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries, is not a single cohesive epoch, the copious citation of trials and laws would merely accumulate evidence of homophobia rather than give us insight into its causes. Throughout this period antihomosexual attitudes and stereotypes changed only in so far as they became more rigid, and were used increasingly to bolster certain social institutions such as the papacy and state governments. The real reason for the persecution of the Templars — the most powerful crusading order of its time — derived from political and economic hostility, greed and envy. The Church and the State defeated a real threat to their authority, confiscated their great wealth, and achieved an object lesson which struck terror into the hearts of much less powerful potential enemies. The unquestioned authority of Church and State was reaffirmed.

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho5.htm

Oh, that was obviously from a pro-homosexual site, just in case anyone needs to actually question the obvious fact that homosexuality was seen as unnatural then too. Its temper tantrumish tone takes away from any authority it tries to convey, but I used it to avoid the accusation of cherry picking my sources. Any serious work will back up the facts as well.

Morris is always on the lookout for revisionism, and I certainly applaud his tenacity in trying to put a PC slant on history.

Nothing wrong with the tradition of British Queens; Elizabeth, Elton,George Michael, Boy George, Prince Eddy, Lord Mountbatten, T.E. Lawrence, Oscar Wilde, Larry Olivier, etc.

Definition of a British man-Margaret Thatcher. You walked into that.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Rue

[moderateamericain]

For the record I have absolutely no problem with Gay union. Nor do i believe its the government's business to regulate who we can and cannot form a union with. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that. We can not be selective about who gets those rights and who doesnt.

[ScottSA]

Rue, I'm afraid I don't know what you think I "walked into." All I said is that this is ahistorical poppycock.

[kuzadd]

For the record I have absolutely no problem with Gay union. Nor do i believe its the government's business to regulate who we can and cannot form a union with. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that. We can not be selective about who gets those rights and who doesnt.

OMG, this is twice now, I am in agreement, with you!!!

Nor do i believe its the government's business to regulate who we can and cannot form a union with. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that. We can not be selective about who gets those rights and who doesnt.

It just bears repeating, what 2 consenting adults choose to do, is not the governments business to regulate!

[ScottSA]

It just bears repeating, what 2 consenting adults choose to do, is not the governments business to regulate!

So I take it you are against the legalization of homosexual marriage then?

[kuzadd]

So I take it you are against the legalization of homosexual marriage then?

I am all for it, just like any other marriage!

[ScottSA]

I am all for it, just like any other marriage!

I don't suppose you make the connection between "regulate" and "legalize?"

[Rue]

Rue, I'm afraid I don't know what you think I "walked into." All I said is that this is ahistorical poppycock.

See you used the word cock. Walked into that too! LOL. Sorry.

[M.Dancer]

See you used the word cock. Walked into that too! LOL. Sorry.

And seeing he knows dick all about history......

[ScottSA]

And seeing he knows dick all about history......

That's pretty ballsy coming from a fellow who constantly testes history with nonsensical revisionism when he ought to know better. There's a vas deferens between adding knowledge to general history and just making up genital history, doncha know? You've rectum your credibility.

Edited September 18, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

That's pretty ballsy coming from a fellow who constantly testes history with nonsensical revisionism when he ought to know better. There's a vas deferens between adding knowledge to general history and just making up genital history, doncha know? You've rectum your credibility.

What? You been doing some reading on the Pelopunesian war?

[sharkman]

Okay everybody, let's not go off half cocked... Dear Rue, Rock Hudson was gay, and I'm pretty sure J Edgar Hoover swung both ways, possibly at the same time.