First, let’s look at your response:

(1) “What a load of crap.” Initial translation: Boswell is wrong. Translation in context of rest of post and link: Boswell is a liar.

(2) “Boswell was gay, and a convert to Catholicism.” Initial translation: “Boswell was a gay Catholic.” Translation in context of rest of post and link: “Boswell is a sinner and abomination in the eyes of the Catholic church, and can not be a true Catholic because a true Catholic–presumably not a convert–would not write a scholarly article in which (s)he finds historical support for a theory that is not popular.”

(3) “No wonder he would engage in such revisionist ‘history’.” Only one translation: Because of Boswell’s presumed sexuality and religion, Boswell lied about his findings and theories in order to advance a secret gay agenda. Boswell was thus dishonest and unethical to a point where he would risk his academic reputation and livelihood in order to spread the lie that the Catholic church at times tolerated/condoned/approved/administered/officiated/recognized civil unions between two persons of the same sex.”

Your initial argument focuses only on the man and not the theories he advanced in his paper.

Next, let’s look at the response you co-opted.

Instead of attacking the author, Ms. Horvat, based on her religion, sexuality, gender, height, etc., I’ll focus only on the article to which you cite. In it, Horvat first states that Boswell “blasphemes the saints with blatant assumptions and lies that falsely misrepresent what Holy Mother Church has always stood for in regards to the sin of sodomy.” Ooookay.

Horvat, too, begins with an ad hominem attack on Boswell, saying that he blasphemes (which I believe the Catholic church condemns as a sin).

She then states that it is Boswell’s “agenda [which] gives tolerance to the type of abherent behavior that is causing grave scandal today.” So, she offers a variation on the ‘slippery slope’ argument, in that Boswell’s article is the badge of an agenda that causes people to tolerate different peoples, and it is that tolerance that causes “grave scandal.” It appears as though Horvat is more concerned with the effect of the article rather than its scholarship.

Horvat goes on to equate Boswell’s article with other “historical revisionism” such as *gasp* history [re-] written from a feminist perspective, histories which focus on black oppression, and histories which focus on the tension between “oppressed proletariats and the oppressive capitalists.” Such revisionist history Horvat claims cannot be true, but are lies perpetrated by those who seek to “exploit their interests.” This ‘black-or-white’ fallacy supposes that the only true version of history is that as it was believed before other scholars found posited new theories in light of new facts or opined on how events affected and were effected by peoples who were not previously the focus of research.

Horvat finally gets to the (presumed) point of Boswell’s paper: “homosexuality was tolerated in the first centuries of Christianity and homosexual marriages were celebrated liturgically in the Middle Ages.” Okay. But, then Horvat warns that your children may be exposed to Boswell’s “scholarship.” Crikey!

Horvat opines that it was Boswell’s primary intent to find “‘facts’ that could justify homosexuality as something normal and acceptable in order to further the gay rights agenda of our day.” Look, she just goes on and on about his agenda and not his scholarship.

When Horvat finally gets to arguing the merits of Boswell’s position—which she should have done from the beginning—she has already lost much credibility. Horvath’s argument is based on the fallacy that because the teachings of the Catholic church are “gay is evil”, then the church could have never tolerated homosexual unions at various points in the last 2,000+ years.

Horvat acknowledges Boswell used “meticulous footnotes and all the scholarly apparatus to gain credibility for his theories” (she herself cites to Boswell’s article in 8 out of 14 cites), but then dismisses the scholarship of the work by concluding “his scholarship was completely subjective and relativistic.” And then she really turns it on. Here are some choice bits:

“In the name of tolerance, legislation is being introduced to permit homosexual marriages, symbolic of a cultural and spiritual transformation of the country, and an end of culture and civilization as we know it.”

“As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen pointed out in 1931, what the world is suffering from today is not intolerance, but tolerance: “tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.”

“Books like Boswell’s are just plain “bad” history, in every sense of the word. And the practice of bad history is even more dangerous than the practice of bad medicine, because its poison seeps into the very soul of Christian Civilization.”

Look, Horvat’s argument is rife with fallacies. I was merely impressed that you managed to convey all of her bullshit into three short sentences. Nice going.

[Edited for spelling and formatting]

“Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of …

The problem is Christians (or members of any other religious cult) aren’t very keen on anything that’s contrary to myth in the first place.

  The Church “downplaying the role of sex in hetero marriage” is a relatively recent cultural thing, dressed up as Christianity, but not really a Christian thing at all.  Sort of like how Birkas are a cultural thing dressed up as Islam, and not really part of Islam at all.  As you’ve pointed out, the Vatican has often been very interested in  increasing the number of catholics born, and you can’t do that without sex.

After the Turks won at Mohács I seem to remember the Pope giving Christian men permission to have multiple wives… to father more Christian soldiers.  Can’t find the reference, though.

The point of the article to which you cite–and your posts–was this:
a. Boswell was gay
b. Because Boswell was gay:
  i. his research and theories could NOT be true or accurate, and
  ii. he was academically dishonest and lied in order to advance a secret gay agenda
c. the secret gay agenda threatens society
d. Because the Catholic church now condemns gay marriage, it is impossible for it to have ever accepted it in the last 2,000+ years
e. “Tolerance” of different perspectives, customs, and biology is evil and leads to the downfall of society, and
f. Any historian who focuses on history of feminism, black people, poor people, or gay people, is a “historical revisionist”
g. And, although the author of your cited article (Vashort or something like that) acknowledged Boswell’s numerous citations and historical support, she (who only cited 6 sources that weren’t Boswell) dismissed his scholarship summarily as biased agenda-pushing fodder.

If my post can make it out of the ether, I will stand on it further.  In the end, however, I was simply pointing out how amazed I was that you encapsulated your cite’s ignorance, intolerance, and fear-mongering in three short sentences.  Be proud.

Frankly, I’d like to debate this formally, in person.  If any happy mutant would be willing to serve as an even-handed moderator, please tell me when and where.

2. These rites are completely taken out of context. At the time, men and men would often cohabitate and this is just a legal document affirming their co habitation status – but totally #nohomo

3. Lalalala I can’t hear you Jesus loves me lalala you’re going to hell lalalala

Logical fallacies are dangerous Frank.

In context of your comment, I would just like to say:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You will never be able to listen to Sœur Sourire singing Dominique again without a shudder.

Anyway- that’s my summary of the history of denominations, haha.