First gay marriage legal, for now

January 15, 2001 3:15 PM

First gay marriage legal, for now "The Ontario government will face a court battle if it refuses to register two marriages performed yesterday at a Toronto church in a ceremony billed as the world's first legal homosexual wedding since the Middle Ages."
posted by sylloge (11 comments total)

the world's first legal homosexual wedding since the Middle Ages.

What does this mean? Is there something about the middle ages I didn't learn in history class?

posted by croutonsupafreak at 3:32 PM on January 15, 2001

The legality/acceptance of homosexuality has gone though several ups and downs in the last couple millennia. It hasn't always been a no-no, not even within religions.
posted by aaron at 3:40 PM on January 15, 2001

Yes, this is something you didn't learn in history class. In my experience, they normally don't teach about sexuality in history classes...
posted by Neb at 4:36 PM on January 15, 2001

Despite the smugness of that answer, you probably would have heard about this in sociology class, not history class. Fortunately, the inimitable John Boswell is around to explain both the social background as well as the specific ceremonies and rites.
posted by m.polo at 4:45 PM on January 15, 2001

I learned about it in high school. In a British History class, where it belonged.
posted by aaron at 8:43 PM on January 15, 2001

Well, it does have historical significance - like the soliders of Sparta - so it would fit in both, I would think. Maybe there should be more historical sociology courses?..or something.

Anyways, back to topic...
posted by mkn at 11:06 PM on January 15, 2001

Advice I have never forgotten
Mommies Question.

Question : Would you choose a world where
1 -
a ) All are homoes
b ) All are heteroes

2 -
c ) All are fat
d ) All are proportionate to height/weight

which would YOU choose ?
posted by ojsbuddy at 11:46 PM on January 15, 2001

In answer to ojsbuddy's questions:

No.

This is a variation on what Kundera called the Grand Inquisitor's question, though not quite as stark as that pairing: Would you choose freedom without happiness, or
happiness without freedom? The only principled answer is "No."

I reject the choice. The first pairing could be achieved, if at all, only by mass murder, and the latter is simply nonsense. What does it mean to say someone is "proportionate to height and weight"? How do you compare a human being--character and experience and skills--to two random scalars?

I know, I know, it's a euphemism for "has the body shape the speaker finds attractive." If we could all wave a wand and be tall, healthy, and young-looking, we would. The choice is whether we will allow ourselves to go out in public, or hide because we think our bodies aren't good enough to be seen.

I choose to be seen, and I don't care whether someone else thinks I'm "proportionate" to my height and weight: my feet are long enough to reach the ground, and my arms are long enough to reach the keyboard, and there's enough skin for the tattoos.
posted by rosvicl at 12:03 PM on January 16, 2001

Question : Would you choose a world where
1 -
a ) All are homoes
b ) All are heteroes

well, a) wouldn't last very long, would it?
posted by dagnyscott at 12:05 PM on January 16, 2001

way to go, good for them.

hopefully we will see lots of more gay marriages in canada.
posted by will at 12:20 PM on January 16, 2001

well, a) wouldn't last very long, would it?

It depends. Everyone being homosexual wouldn't preclude intercourse with the opposite sex (or, more likely, artificial insemination) for the sole purpose of procreation.
posted by daveadams at 12:25 PM on January 16, 2001