Response to the allegation that Same Sex Marriage was accepted by early Christians.

Response to the allegation that Same Sex Marriage was accepted by early Christians.

In the early days of Christianity and as the expansion touched several cultural traditions of the time, many customs might have been accepted. That doesn't mean that what seems to be an interpretation of an icon is in fact the reality of the time. The first Concilium was in Nicea (Currently Turkey), almost 3 centuries after Jesus died. A lot of things happen in 300 hundred years. Even though the references today are in Latin, most likely this was conducted in Greek. Nicea is known to us because of the Catholic Creed we recite, which has the first formal form derived from the first meeting of the Christian Bishops.

Regardless of the accuracy of the interpretation it is a fact that homosexuality was a common practice of those days and both Greek and Romans had male companions, even if married to a woman. Some of these companions where what today we would considered under aged, and therefore illegal (not to mention the immoral part, which would be accepted as abuse by straight and homosexual alike), therefore we cannot conclude based on the case of acceptance at a point in time, as a precedent to our society today. It is a historical reference, without a doubt, but history doesn't always control the present. There was polygamy for most of mankind, and no woman would admit to that as something acceptable. Cannibalism has also been part of human history and today we have to put down our forks regardless of the urges. To base our conclusions in one single act doesn't help anyone's cause, since refutation will come easily.

Moreover, for many the Church is not good example of the best behavior, and regardless of the homosexuality that certainly occurs inside it, it is not the norm and it is not accepted. The issue will continue to be one of civil rights, not one of religious connotations. Rights that have to be expressed civilly by creating a legal institution that recognizes a void in the legislation and grants a status that society will agree with and that will allow relationships to mature and progress in the privacy of their homes as with mine and yours.

I have done a quick research on the matter, and as I suspected it is an opinion or interpretation of one author, John Boswell, which has the clear agenda to "prove" that this relationships were blessed by society, and Church alike. He even translates "adelphopoiesis", a Greek word meaning brother-making as a same sex union; translation and acceptance both rejected by the Greek Orthodox Church.

The fact that Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world of his time holding hands to another man, doesn't mean that we should send a Village boy to David Paetaeus to make him more effective against the Taliban.

Remember I am all for the legalization of civil unions and recognition of a status that will solve the issues at hand. Continue to try to prove that it HAS TO BE MARRIAGE will end up delaying the implementation of something that will ultimately hurt the parts involved.

If you review the “Libro Primo Regularum” from Roman jurist Modestinus you will find a clear definition of Marriage in Roman Law, it literally says: "Nuptiae sunt coniuctio maris et feminae et consortiumomnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio". In the later compilation of Roman Law, Institutions, by Bizantine EmperorJustinian, the definition (De ritu nuptiarum) is as follows: "Nuptiaeautem sive matrimonium est viri et mulieris coniuctio, individuam consuetudinemvitae continens". Ulpianus also recollects that " Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit".

The idea is that regardless of the translation that a contemporary author out to prove a point could provide it is clearly documented what the institution of matrimony meant in the ancient Rome. Remember also that Rome was pagan before Christian and therefore the religious ingredient present in the times of Justinian only reflects the way the Church inserted itself in society. I early Rome, most of the Civil Acts were performed in front of witnesses and following a form, before it was a requisite to do it in front of a magistrate, or even a priest. Regardless of when, it is capricious to give a very explicit language like Greek, a second guess according to current intentions. If the rite (adelphopoiesis) was brother-making, there is really no sense in making something else of it.

Francis Butters