Liberals Rewrite Same-Sexuality History

Finding justification for perversion is a full time job these days. every effort is being made to make the unnatural, illogical, and immoral into a celebration of pride. First there were just homosexuals and heterosexuals. Now there is a full array of sexual types that we will be forced to acknowledge under the penalty of law and forced red-education programs.

This has all taken place because of a full scale revision of moral thought and history.

Boswell entered the debate a second time in 1994 with Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. In this bit of revisionist historiography, Boswell claimed that “sexual relationships that have long been condemned as sinful by the church were once tolerated, even blessed.”[1]

samesexThe folks at The Huffington Post resurrected Boswell’s historical fiction with a digital version of the book. The printed version of Boswell’s warped historiography got a thorough thrashing in 1994. The only thing that’s changed is that the media are ferociously pushing all things homosexual.

This is from Annalee Newitz:

“Gay marriage sounds like an ultra-contemporary idea. But almost twenty years ago, a Catholic scholar at Yale shocked the world by publishing a book packed with evidence that same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian Church during an era commonly called the Dark Ages.”


Robert F. Taft, of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, stated that “Boswell has discovered nothing.” In Taft’s analysis, Boswell has simply reinterpreted certain liturgical rituals that were designed as celebrations of “brotherhood” or “fraternity” that were “used for reconciling warring siblings, for adoptions and for establishing other fictive relationships.”[2]

John Boswell equates love for one’s brother to be a cryptic literary allusion to a homosexual union. Thus, Boswell approaches these texts with a homosexual predisposition in mind. Brotherly love becomes same-sex sex. Bizarre, but expected.

Even Camille Paglia, a pro-homosexual advocate, was not persuaded by Boswell’s argument:

“Boswell’s treatment of the Middle Ages, ostensibly his specialty, is strangely unpersuasive. Indeed, he seems grotesquely incapable of imagining any enthusiasm or intimate bond among men that is not overtly or covertly homosexual. … The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth.”

If these medieval rituals were designed for same-sex unions, then why, Taft asks, was homosexuality “punishable in church law by two or three years’ penance, and in civil law by torture, castration and even execution”? Other critics were equally suspicious of Boswell’s highly biased study.

Continue Reading at Godfather Politics…

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend