By Queerty Staff · 93 comments· Updated on January 29, 2024
The Spanish-language magazine TV y Novelas claims this that Martin once dated Eduardo Verástegui, the actor and Hispanic spokesman for California’s Yes On 8 campaign. Under the headline “Que Si Fue Pareja del Boricua” (“He Was the Boyfriend of the Puerto Rican”), the tabloid insists the pair were once a couple. Since, Verástegui has moved on to star in Papi Chulo (“Chasing Papi“) — and denounce the gay community to which he belongs.
Politics, but make it gay!
Stay woke with our briefing while staying informed on all things LGBTQ+ entertainment, life, and more!
In the ad for California’s Yes On 8 campaign, which has been removed from the internet, Verastigui speaks vehemently in favor of Prop 8. He was also a campaign supporter of John McCain.
Notes a reader, who is much wiser about this than we: Eduardo got his start in a Mexican boy band before moving to television and modeling. His sexuality has always been questioned, and a supposed “Daddy” in the Mexican TV biz made him a star. The Hollywood gays protected him when he his way to LA. Then, as the rumors go, Eduardo was “born again faith”, and thus his support of opposite marriage.
Here’s a YouTube smear campaign against him:
Of course we cannot blame Ricky for dating such a d-bag. We all have our embarrassing ex-boyfriends. But it shows even celebrities aren’t immune to falling for would-be terrible people. See: Sandra Bullock.
It’s been 8 weeks since Ricky Martin and husband Jwan Yosef announced they were parting ways after six years of marriage and knocked the gay world off its axis.
“Do what you want, whenever you want, with whoever you want.”
Whether you’re curious about Ricky Martin’s latest endeavors, his gross ex-boyfriend, or simply want to stay in the loop on all things gay, subscribe to the Queerty newsletter! We’re your passport to a world of intriguing stories and the LGBTQ+ community.
Don't forget to share:
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Fine, I hate to say this but I hope his being gay prevents him from getting jobs in the Mexican entertainment industry, and that none of the gay friendly venues in Entertainment will hire him either. he is the worst kind of hypocrite, he wasn’t even somebody who hadn’t dealt with their sexuality yet, he was actively sleeping with guys if this is true AND making ads supporting Prop 8. What a little Roy Cohn Douchebag.
I don’t think you should cite TV y Novelas as a credible source, given TV y Novelas is the Mexican/Latin American equivalent of US Weekly/OK! Magazine.
Even if Verastegui were gay and had dated Martin (though I’d like better proof than one reader’s opinions and a tabloid article), I don’t think his views on gay marriage put him anywhere on the same level as Jesse James and what he’s done to Sanda Bullock.
this dude is effin’ hot. I saw him in the JLo vid, ain’t if funny, and seriously, he is beautiful. Then I looked him up and read he was a committed Christian. So I assumed he was straight. I still don’t know the truth but to hear he was supporting Prop 8. Well pretty on the outside but ugly on the inside.
I do think Christianity or religion has again brainwashed another person.
I get so angry at the No on 8 campaign when I see commercials like this. Did anyone think to make Spanish language ads on tv and radio to reach Hispanic voters in fricken California? Because the Yes on 8 side sure did.
First at all Queerty, is VERASTEGUI, second, he is staunchly catholic, married, and yeah, trough almost all Latin America there were (and still are) rumors that he is in our boat and among the men he dated was also Ricky Martin, old news. And speaking about the topic, he was at my place (Barranquilla, Colombia) last couple of weeks sponsoring Catholic Christian events and speaking against abortion and homosexuality and promoting his new movie (an anti-abortion movie, go figure). He rabidly but also diplomatically denied in a press conference here all those rumors that were dormant just after Martin officially walked out of the closet.
Almost anyone who is not a religious nut (read. fanatic) agrees that he’s a severe closet case and worst of all, a huge self-denial guy. My personal opinion is that he’s homo and brainwashed.
He can be a committed Christian. Fine. But…. the Constitution of the USA allows freedom of religion.
Which is exactly why Prop 8 is wrong. Everyone should be free to marry who they want. He is free to practice the religion of his choice PRECISELY because of the Consitution.
Gay or straight how dare he use the freedom (and everyone else of the same persuasion) to DENY freedoms to others.
It has been said before but bears repeating – the US Constitution has NEVER before been used to limit the rights of a specified group (after slavery). IE Prohibition to drink alcohol applied to EVERYONE.
@delurker again: The cast of Ugly Betty made commercials individually for NO on Prop 8.
If he is gay then he went along with the haterosexual supremacist ideology he was surrounded by from birth. Those of us who have come out AND acknowledged why it was so hard AND why anti-gay bigotry is so pervasive know the source of all the anti-gay bigotry lies with heterosexuals and that it is our jobs to fight it. Those of us that do that are strong. Water carriers for haterosexual supremacist ideology like Ty Mansfield, Larry Craig, Donnie McClurkin, and Todd Holland are weak and cruel.
The gays MADE Eduardo Verastegui, in return he stabs them in the back
Why it’s Eduardo Verestegui! And ever since he was introduced as the Latino face of the “Yes on 8” campaign I have heard nothing but shock and disgust from most of my Spanish-speaking Latino friends throughout the country.
Part of the shock for some friends is that they assumed Verastegui was gay (a lot of them grew up watching him perform with Kiero and playing leads in popular Mexican soap operas). I mean, just by the photos and video above there’s no doubt in my mind he knew exactly who his fanbase was and that it was tres-gay. So forgive some from feeling ultra-betrayed.
“the sacred union of a men and a woman” according to verastuguis’ video hahahhahahahha after all the heterosexuals deserve piety, the guy who commented on his video said that ricky should be decapitated for contaminating this world with his queerness.there should be no surprise that these demons cognize heterosexuality as holy and homosexuality as impure or sick,they care inverted to core, they will get a huge surprise, if only they knew.any mind that enjoys generating heterophilia simply don’t know what sort of monster they are catering to.sad but true
Even if Verastegui were gay and had dated Martin (though I’d like better proof than one reader’s opinions and a tabloid article), I don’t think his views on gay marriage put him anywhere on the same level as Jesse James and what he’s done to Sanda Bullock.
___________________
Are you fucking kidding me? you’re saying that one guy cheating on his wife is somehow much worse than somebody who advocates making laws to insure the second class status of an entire group of millions of people? And worse…that he is one of that group but pretending not to be? What kind of screwed up world do you live in?!
To witness self-loathing Gay men is absolutely heart-wrenching to me! If only they knew of the positions of religious/ shamanic and civil power we used to wield on every country on Earth! And, it’s this ignorance that Evangelicals pray on, I think… It’s a spiritual monopoly!
@Anyone speaks Spanish?: You know it pisses me of that that SOB!!! is spreading the lie that marriage has been only between a man and a woman for thousands of years in all parts of the world, I guess he didn’t pay attention to the prop 8 trial nor does he realize that there are countries who practiced polygamy back when jesus was before him and even now. And there were same-sex marriage-like ceremonies in the roman times before xtians took over and started persecuting them.
What a dbag, it really pissed me of that thsi Mexicanito pendejo, baboso, idiota, hijo de la mugre who isn’t even a US citizen was advocating against Americans’ rights when he himself isn’t even an American.
It’s one thing for someone to protests for civil rights of other ppls in the world and another to decry equality for other ppl’s civil rights.
On a much lighter note, if he is in fact gay and supposedly had sex with Ricky Martin of all people what in the hell made him such a self hating homophobe after that? Was Ricky that bad?!?
@Mike L: Dear pretentious moron, where are your citations from credible, scholarly sources (i.e., not gay “marriage” advocating pettifoggers) for your claim that “there were same-sex marriage-like ceremonies in the roman times before xtians took over and started persecuting them”?
Allow me to answer this one, as I’ve studied it for several years (and, yes, these are either source material or penned by serious professional scholars who are, or have, taught at a university):
* Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, by Prof. John Boswell
* Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, by Ibid.
* Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love, by Will Roscoe (Anthropologist)
* The Zuni Man-Woman, by Ibid.
* Queer Myths: A Gay Men’s Myth Book, by Ibid
* “A History of Same-Sex Marriage” in the Virginia Law Review, 79:7.
* “We Will Get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will Not ‘Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every Marriage'”, by Nancy D. Polikoff in Virginia Law Review, 79:7.
* Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28, 62.13 Old Translation of passage at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
* Herodian Roman History 5.6.1-5.6.2 Old Translation of passage at: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/herodian_05_book5.htm
* Suetonius in his “Nero”
These last three references show that The Roman Emperors Nero and Elegabalus, respectively, were each married to men under the auspices and cheers of the state and citizens; each wedding encompassed the traditional Roman ceremonies, which culminated in their new husband being introduced to their ancestral hearth-flame, the goddess Vesta. Moreover, these ancient historians recorded that their respective husband was the “spouse” of the Emperor.
However, the two Virginia Law Review articles, as well as Prof. Roscoe’s book on Shamanism each disclose that marriages between two men were a joyous part of the Chuckchi shamanic sect/ culture. An identical belief is also extent amid the Native American plains Indians!
In spite of this overwhelming evidence (yes, even disclosed in the Fed. Prop 8 Trial by professional Historians), why do you disregard out-of-hand the statements made by “Mike L.”?
Given more time than what I have, now, I could list many other sources of evidence, Milesius.
There was a rumor that one of the Ricky Martin’s kids is eduardo’s…… i read it a year ago on MIRA that trashy magazine!!they compared it to Eduardo when he was a child!!!… Eduardo became famoso when he did that popular NOVELA Sonadoras! back in 2000…. he’s HOT!!!!! Hay MUCHA tela que cortar!!! my grandma used to say!!!
You cannot tell me there isn’t a person, glbtq specifically for this site, that has dirty little secrets- now imagine if they could talk or had videos or pictures! No one should talk about past exes, but imagine if they wrote a book or went on a talk show tour- I’d probably be a hot mess like Lindsay Lohan!
I knew someone was going to cite Boswell’s _discredited_ gay apologia.
“Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love”–I can tell this is bs, right off the bat. Jesus had nothing to do with shamanism or same-sex love (See Matthew 19:4-5). Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception.
The only thing you have are a few despised, morally dissolute emperors. That does not establish his claim.
@Mike L: Perhaps I was a little harsh with you, so you have my apologies (provisionally :D). I have little patience for gay apologia, though. There may be legitimate arguments for extending the rights of marriage to same sex couples but “the Romans did it!” ain’t one of ’em.
@Milesius: Boswell’s work is FAR from discredited! Controversial at most, but NOT discredited by academic standards… Have a look at the following website by Fordham University that has tracked the scholars who have reviewed it favorably; while those opposed to is generally hold religious animus: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
As for Roscoe’s text on Shamanism, it has little to do with conflating Jesus with EITHER shamanism or same-sex love (which, as the author clearly states, does not equate to homoeroticism in the context that he is using it). Ever heard of not judging a book by its cover?! Also, when speaking of other cultures and their allowance of same-sex marriage, I suggest that you NOT employ your fraudulent book of myths that you call “The Bible”. Everyone knows they are based purely on earlier Mesopotamian or Sumerian pagan myths and narratives, anyway!
Hell, even the Anthropological Association of America, which oversees a HUGE body of academic, data, and scholarship, has released a policy statement in favor of Marriage Equality (deflating the “traditional marriage” meme) based upon what they have observed in countless cultures. Your statement just goes to show that you have almost no understanding of academia, and various specialized fields–it’s pathetic, really.
And, again, you discount the shamanic Chuckchi people whose Gay shamans married men, which is an established fixture of the Native American plains “Indians”. I suggest that you kindly take your Bible and do something good with it, like shove it up your holier-than-thou ass! The history of Christianity is the history of oppression! As a historian, myself, I don’t suffer fools gladly…
@Milesius: “There may be legitimate arguments for extending the rights of marriage to same sex couples but ‘the Romans did it!’ ain’t one of ’em.”
That makes just about as much insufferable “sense” as those I have seen dare to proclaim that, since Marriage Equality never been recognized in the U.S.A. (despite earlier native cultures that have practiced it) than we shouldn’t start, now! Do you even KNOW what REAL “Traditional Marriage” *is*?! It was about buying a wife, and viewing her as your property! Until very recently, a man was legally allowed to beat his wife…
Marriage, today, is chiefly about love, and wanting to form inviolable kinship that government nor family can interfere with, as much as they might want to. It’s about saying that this is the person I want to grow old with! Do you even realize that most non-Gay people look at un-married, albeit committed Gay couples’ relationships as if they are not serious relationships, until they are married?!
Boswell’s work is discredited. The site you cited, while it has a pretense of objectivity, is nonetheless the work of a gay prof who was arrested for dealing cocaine at a gay bar.
I am aware of the Anthropological Association of America’s statement. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. As I said, most cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures.
As for my knowledge of scholarship, I am coauthor on three papers thus far, which is, I’m sure, three more than you have to your credit. (I am in the mathematical sciences.)
“And, again, you discount the shamanic Chuckchi people whose Gay shamans married men, which is an established fixture of the Native American plains ‘Indians’.”–Yes, I do. Even if that is correct, I could not care less.
Oh, and this:
“Everyone knows they are based purely on earlier Mesopotamian or Sumerian pagan myths and narratives, anyway!”
Is a form of pseudoargumentation known as proof surrogate. It is also manifestly false.
Finally, there are no such things as “memes.” “Memetics” is a pseudoscientific concept floated by a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output.
Not one of our state constitutions or the federal constitution is based on “earlier native cultures,” so what they did or did not do is completely irrelevant, unless gays who are clamoring for gay “marriage” wish to relocate to Native American reservations, which is fine by me. Quite frankly, I do not care what rights gay “marriage” advocates think they _should_ have, only those rights which they necessarily have under state and federal constitutions, which are to be read in the socio-historical contexts in which they were written and amended.
Your reliance on name-calling and other forms of personal attack have the effect of invalidating your claims.
“I knew someone was going to cite Boswell’s _discredited_ gay apologia.”
Boswell’s work has not been discredited. A few minor league homophobes who make their living promoting discrimination against GLBTQ people have raised objections to one minor point, others have ‘refuted’ strawman arguments of their own creation that have no honest relationship to Boswell’s arguments.
More important though, is that you did not even attempt to refute Boswell’s claims, heck, you didn’t even paraphrase them accurately. Your characterization “the Romans did it!” creates the strong impression that either you did not read either of Boswell’s texts on the subject, or that you are simply telling lies. Or both.
“Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception.”
This is essentially libel on your part, and it is another case of you simply dismissing, without evidence, sources that challenge your unverified assertions. You need to repent.
Your quote from Matthew 19:4-5 is a case of fraud, by the way, fraud through selectivity. The passage you point people to is a response to a tightly defined question, and to apply that to a broader perspective is dishonest at the very least.
The honest thing to do, Milesius, would have to start with the question Jesus answered: 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Asked a question in the explicit context of heterosexual relationships, Jesus answered within that context. It proves nothing about other contexts.
Further, you stopped short of the point Jesus makes:
7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So Jesus is asserting that remarriage after divorce is adultery, a crime that Leviticus imposes the death penalty upon. Yet remarriage after divorce is accepted, even celebrated by the majority of fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality. And even that is not the end of the message:
“10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus acknowledges, without condemnation, a far broader understanding of male sexuality than fundamentalists respect – one that includes men who have no sexual attraction to women from birth.
Mostly though, calling Mike L. a “pretentious moron” is clearly addressed by Jesus:
Matthew 5: 21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “
On who’s say so? Your assertion without evidence is not convincing.
“The site you cited, while it has a pretense of objectivity, is nonetheless the work of a gay prof who was arrested for dealing cocaine at a gay bar.”
And your use of ad hominem does not strengthen your case.
“I am aware of the Anthropological Association of America’s statement. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. As I said, most cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures.”
There seems to be a huge glut of ego involved in your responses.
“As for my knowledge of scholarship, I am coauthor on three papers thus far, which is, I’m sure, three more than you have to your credit. (I am in the mathematical sciences.)”
Of course, alleged expertise in mathematics makes you infallible in other subjects as well.
1 Samuel 2:3 (New International Version)
3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
Proverbs 16:5
The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 18:12
Before his downfall a man’s heart is proud, but humility comes before honor.
Proverbs 21:4
Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin!
Proverbs 21:24
The proud and arrogant man-“Mocker” is his name; he behaves with overweening pride.
“Yes, I do. Even if that is correct, I could not care less.”
More of that ol’ ego going on.
“It is also manifestly false.”
And that is an empty dismissl.
“Finally, there are no such things as “memes.” “Memetics” is a pseudoscientific concept floated by a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output.”
As is that.
Just because you state something doesn’t mean it is accurate. Frankly, your use of personal attack and blanket dismissals create the impression that every thing state is a lie, based on the fact that your guesses about the character and motives of other people are predominantly derived from your own knowledge of your own character.
Read Matthew 19:4-5 again (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
The purposeful complementarity of men and women rules out homoerotic acts, let alone “marriage.” This is an obvious point; your inability to apprehend it is not my problem.
And your claims re: the refutations of Boswell’s “scholarship” are manifestly false. David Wright was an excellent scholar and he completely destroyed Boswell’s claims concerning the homoerotic acts and the NT. I suggest having someone read his articles to you.
Look, I know you are a poseur. Others here may not know it but that is because they are dim bulbs and/or you are telling them what they want to hear.
Oh, and you completely misrepresented Jesus’ message re: “eunuchs.” It is about sexual continence/abstinence, not homosexuals.
The transparent lies of gay apologists are tiresome. Quit while you are behind.
Milesius “a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output”
I have a low opinion of Richard Dawkins, considered to be the person who coined or adapted the term ‘meme’, however, it is only fair to point out Mr. Dawkins has 55 papers, books and articles to his credit, according to wikipedia.
Milesius “I am coauthor on three papers thus far”
I am not a mathematician, nor someone pretending to be, but I learned in 1st grade that 55 is a bigger number than 3.
@Milesius: “Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception”
American culture fast becoming one of these “backwater” cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.
“I am not a mathematician, nor someone pretending to be, but I learned in 1st grade that 55 is a bigger number than 3.”
I’m at the beginning of my career. Dawkins has not published research since the Thatcher administration. (Besides which, the research he published is of questionable worth.)
“Read Matthew 19:4-5 again (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)”
Your insults only diminish your integrity, not mine.
“He answered,”
Jesus answered a very specific question. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Now, any real scientist understands that the context of data is crucial to understanding the data itself.
“The purposeful complementarity of men and women rules out homoerotic acts, let alone “marriage.” This is an obvious point; your inability to apprehend it is not my problem.”
First this aside.
complementarity: the quality or state of being complementary.
So, you use the longer word form, even though the shorter form would be as accurate both in meaning and grammatically. Yet you accused someone else of being “pretentious”: Making or marked by an extravagant outward show;
In my opinion, using the longer form of the word complementary could fairly be called pretentious. Just something to consider, of course.
Now, back to complementary: Supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks
Same-sex relationships are just as capable of being complementary as mix-sex relationships. On some levels, same-sex relationships are better at supplying the mutual needs of those involved. And experientially, homoerotic sexual expression is far better at ensuring complementary experience – men know generally better than women what feels good to a man’s body, women generally know better what feels good to a woman’s body, both sexes tend to be better at communicating about sexual experiences and sexual pleasure to others of their own gender.
Your characterization is convenient, but limited at best.
Further, marriage is not restricted to those who reproduce, nor is reproduction its primary purpose, and the complementary nature of same-sex relationships is just as well served by the legal contract of marriage as heterosexual relationships are.
“And your claims re: the refutations of Boswell’s “scholarship” are manifestly false. David Wright was an excellent scholar and he completely destroyed Boswell’s claims concerning the homoerotic acts and the NT. I suggest having someone read his articles to you.”
You are making false claims and relying on insults and bullying behavior, empty bluster in place of facts. If Wright’s arguments are so strong – quote them. A real scientist would as a matter of course quote the material he challenged.
Re David Wright: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
“he is also conservative evangelical, and an elder in one of the most theologically conservative congregations in Edinburgh. Moreover, he has been attacking Boswell for decades now, beginning with an oral presentation, at which I was present. to the Graduate Seminar of the Edinburgh History department (in 1981 or 82). He began by making overtly homophobic jokes about Boswell’s use of the word “gay”. ”
You’ve got a bigot dismissing Boswell’s work because of Boswell’s sexual orientation.
“Look, I know you are a poseur.”
Ah, the fallacy of ad hominem.
“Oh, and you completely misrepresented Jesus’ message re: “eunuchs.” It is about sexual continence/abstinence, not homosexuals.”
No, I made no misrepresentation at all.
“The transparent lies of gay apologists are tiresome. Quit while you are behind.”
Empty dismissals and bluster are poor replacements for scholarship and integrity.
You’ve repeatedly sinned against me with false accusations. Please repent.
“American culture fast becoming one of these ‘backwater’ cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.”
Byron’s “with just enough of learning to misquote” characterizes you quite well.
“You’ve got a bigot dismissing Boswell’s work because of Boswell’s sexual orientation.”
Damn you are dumb. First:
BIGOT, n.
One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
Second:
David Wright’s criticisms of Boswell are solid. He knows the Greek as well as everything else; Boswell does not, which is apparent from his sophomoric mistakes.
“I’m at the beginning of my career. Dawkins has not published research since the Thatcher administration. (Besides which, the research he published is of questionable worth.)”
It would be reasonable to expect a mathematician to know that the year 2004 came after the year 1990.
I don’t like the man, because of his abusive and strident prejudice against people of faith, however, in all fairness, his credentials for coining the word ‘meme’ are much better than your credentials for religion.
The terrible irony for both you and Dawkins is that you are both peers in prejudice. You malign GLBTQ people, he maligns people of faith, both of you insist that your word alone outweighs anyone else’s testimony, scholarship, or experiences.
You and Dawkins are peas in pod taking pot shots in different directions.
@Milesius: Neologisms perfectly suit the dishonest quality and character of a guy like you, prove me wrong. I want to hear you disprove Queer Theory next, since Cassandar has rubbed your filthy little nose in it so well thus far. Indulge me?
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
big·ot (b?g’?t)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
From my prior citation (you haven’t provided any so far, by the way): “He began by making overtly homophobic jokes”
Of course, the dismissive attack on my intelligence does nothing to substantiate your own claims.
“David Wright’s criticisms of Boswell are solid. He knows the Greek as well as everything else; Boswell does not, which is apparent from his sophomoric mistakes.”
Empty words. From wikipedia’s biography:
“A gifted medieval philologist, he worked in, among other languages, Catalan, Old Church Slavonic, Ancient Greek, Arabic, and Latin[citation needed]. Boswell received his doctorate from Harvard University in 1975, whereupon he joined the Yale University history faculty as its rising star; he was made full professor in 1982. In 1987, Boswell helped organize and found the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale, which is now the Research Fund for Lesbian and Gay Studies. He was named the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History in 1990, when he was also appointed to a two-year term as chair of the Yale history department. Boswell was a gifted and devoted teacher. His undergraduate lectures in medieval history were renowned for their organization, erudition, and wit, with the course often making the “top 10″ for highest enrollment. ”
In contrast, I presented a rebuttal of certain OT testaments texts, from Leviticus in particular, noted that those texts were written in Hebrew, and you tried to dismiss my remarks by extolling your alleged knowledge of Greek.
It created the appearance that you do not know the difference between Greek and Hebrew. Are you a Yale professor?
Do you know what a philologist is? For anyone who does not:
phi·lol·o·gy
? ?/f??l?l?d?i/ Show Spelled[fi-lol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the study of literary texts and of written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.
His career was focused on promoting conservative theology and his expertise was not in linguistics, but theology. Boswell’s argument is in part a philological one.
You though, are neither a philologist or a theologian, and seem to have difficulty with basic math (55 greater than 3, 2004 comes after 1990). And you’ve done a very poor job of substantiating any of your claims, behaving in a completely unprofessional manner for one claiming a career in academia.
male and anti-male complementary?hahahhahah… and the same flesh? that kind of thinking can only come from a hermaphrodite wannabe.i’m a MD in neurology, heterosexuality is a deformation of homosexuality at all levels.i have been studying heterosexuality as a scientist and as a gnostic by working with the isomorphic Maxima,these Maxima constantly state the real meaning of sin ,which is a rebellion to the commandments given by our Maxima to the sexual deviant’s Maxima(disparity) or Ascendent,the reason we are here is beautiful and at the same time sad but we can have the certainty that we are right and every thing we do is right because our Maxima is so. Heterophilia, be toward a human,animal,extraterrestrial or a robot is just that, a perversion,like i said before you can reproduce in theory with infinite opposite structures,but you should only have SEXUALITY with only one kind, your own sex,which is the only one you have the highest physical certainty of sexually belonging to.As i said, heterosexuals are controlled by a MAXIMA, this Maxima is a mental corruption of the holy spirits who do not have the dichotomy male-female,indeed they are bound to alike energies.any attempt of morality by a heterophilic mind is pretty much a blasphemy since as i said they are controlled by a much greater force that generates putrid thought-forms. all homosexuals should immediately recognize the schemes of these low forces operating in these creation.Heterosexuality is a putrid and shameful moral and mental condition especially in the realms in which the Maxima of “Darkness” has its core energy.if there were a machine to increase the sexual dimorphism of these deforme-looking anti-couple they would know what kind of mess they would be getting into, the anti-coupling of man and antimale, is a psudonatural form of psuedocoupling,not to say that it is also not universal at all.the only couple that are universal are those formed and composed isomorphically with the same structures inside and out,because under any change the parity remain constant, this property has strong physical,mental and spiritual implications, that many homosexuals are blind to, since Darkness is corrupting and twisting the thought-forms of the non sexual deviants MAXIMA.what you experience as a simple human conflict is actually a bigger one.this is the reason why after magnification and amplification occurs, those who are putrid shall become even nastier ,and those who are pure will become purer.heterosexuality is a mind that has been generated before with awful consequences to the ethereal dimension, with the subsequent creation of two opposing “MAXIMA”,one constant(good) and the other with a Minima(evil).there is no other process of purification, they are things that i can’t explain now, but it has to do by the fact that the Maxima has Minima that approaches asymptotically the constant values of the pure one,it is complex to understand at first, and this Minima is strongly actively operating in order to corrupt and erode the morality of the homos and homo-“sexuals”, those inside the entrapment and outside(the isosexual point).the truth about heterosexuality in HUMANS, is very corrupted to suit the heterosexual agenda, in fact, heterosexuality has a totally different meaning to homosexuals,which would be to EXCHANGE “homosexualities.”
@beto: Verastegui is not married. He has an American sugar daddy who lives in Key Biscayne (who is married and has kids, and is a fanatic Christian), and who funds Verastegui’s movies.
Ricky Martin has the duty, the moral obligation, to come out and explain what his relationship was with Verastegui, since they both lived together in Miami when Verastegui first came to the States. Verastegui has turned into an enemy of the gays. Will Martin step up to the plate?
I am not interested in your internet citations. I am aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (except for a portion written in Aramaic). Apparently, you are not aware that it was translated into Greek and that version of the OT (i.e., the Septuagint) is the one quoted in the NT. I know from the Greek translation of the OT as well as the original Greek text of the NT that homoerotic acts are condemned in no uncertain terms in both. You “cite” the Hebrew but even though I have not studied Hebrew I know very well that you are speaking out of your arse.
As for Boswell, it does not matter where he was educated. His errors are dissected in detail by David Wright. Boswell may have been a decent Medieval scholar (except where he veered into gay apologia) but his assertions regarding the word arsenokoitai, for example, are fallacious.
Moron Cassandra, relying on wikipedia (because he/she cannot be bothered to look at anything else), claims Dawkins has published research as recently as 2004. Let’s take a look at the list of citations:
2000s
* Dawkins, R. (2000). “W. D. Hamilton memorial”. Nature 405 (6788): 733.
* Dawkins, R. (2002). “Should doctors be Darwinian?”. Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
* Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). “Is a scientific boycott ever justified?”. Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
* Dawkins, R. (2003). “The evolution of evolvability”. On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
* Dawkins, R. (2004). “Viruses of the mind”. in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.
* Dawkins, R. (June 2004). “Extended phenotype – But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka”. Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.
Anything resembling original research there? No. Any data collected to test scientific hypotheses? No. Publishing opinion pieces, even in Nature, does not count as research output. Your inability to apprehend this is not my problem.
@Adman: Queer Theory is a bs discipline that attracts people who lack the native intelligence to cut it in real academic disciplines. It should be renamed Queer Assertions or Queer Yarns or Queer Making **** Up, right before it is ejected out of academia completely.
Really, you’d be better off advocating the Theory of the Four Humors.
Does Queerty have an intelligence cap? If so, I apologize for violating it to such an extreme. My mere presence here has obviously raised the mean intelligence by several standard deviations.
“David Wright was not a philologist. He was a distinguished evangelical church historian and theologian. http://news.scotsman.com/obitu…..3805020.jp
His career was focused on promoting conservative theology and his expertise was not in linguistics, but theology. Boswell’s argument is in part a philological one.”
Dear Dumb Ass,
David Wright was a NT scholar, a Patristics scholar, and an expert concerning Ancient Greek. Once again you have demonstrated that there is no bottom to dumb.
“You though, are neither a philologist or a theologian, and seem to have difficulty with basic math (55 greater than 3, 2004 comes after 1990).”
I never claimed 3 is greater than 55, nor did I claim that the year 2004 preceded 1990. You are both stupid and a liar. (It appears that your sole purpose in life is depleting oxygen, like Harvey Milk.)
To all those who say that Mr.Eduardo Verástegui is hot thus they would “hit that”-he may boink you but he will not walk down the aisle with you. He should have put a ring on Ricky!
@Milesius: This from a guy with a few degrees from a bible college…tell us more doctor, so far you’ve cited a bunch of loons, whom you most closely resemble. Admit homophobia is a bigoted notion, an invention of the psychopathological reaching of a bunch of desert nomads and just admit you’re superstition. Sky daddy might hurt you if you give into your urge to suck dick. You sound like William Lane Craig on meth.
So, more abusive and completely unprofessional behavior, coupled with the completely unscientific stance of summarily dismissing any evidence other than his/her own.
“I am aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (except for a portion written in Aramaic). Apparently, you are not aware that it was translated into Greek and that version of the OT (i.e., the Septuagint) is the one quoted in the NT.”
Followed by a fantasy about what I do, or do not know, that 1) has not basis in reality, and 2) cannot be logically derived from any material I have presented.
Of course, it is all bluster. After all, when I wrote about Leviticus, I was not addressing anything ‘quoted in the NT’. So you offer up a smokescreen argument over the validity of Septuagint vs. the Masoretic text, and which is authoritative over the other. All of this bluster from you is presented as a substitute for any substantive argument.
“You “cite” the Hebrew but even though I have not studied Hebrew I know very well that you are speaking out of your arse.”
More profanity and more fantasy, and still, not a single substantive, reality based assertion to challenge, much less refute any point I’ve made – nothing but one ad hominem attack on me after another.
I doubt that this is how real mathematicians function in any worthy academic setting.
“As for Boswell, it does not matter where he was educated. His errors are dissected in detail by David Wright. Boswell may have been a decent Medieval scholar (except where he veered into gay apologia) but his assertions regarding the word arsenokoitai, for example, are fallacious.”
Ah, the double standard dismissal. Milesius, you assert that your education trumps everyone else’s knowledge, study or training, so much so that you don’t even need to substantiate your claims, yet for Boswell “it does not matter where he was educated”. You’ve just denounced your own claim to authority as well, for it no longer matters where you’ve been educated, or what you’ve been educated in.
And summarily dismissing Boswell’s work by labeling them ‘fallacious’ is itself fallacy. Your own posts have been heavily burdened by fallacy, not the least of which is personal attack and appeal to authority.
David Wright approached the texts from the perspective of a conservative theology, Boswell from the perspective of someone trained in language itself.
It has been suggested to you several times now that you present the allegedly discrediting arguments of the Mr. Wright, and you continue to fail to do so. This creates the impression that you are aware of the flaws in Wright’s claims and are unable to defend them.
“Moron Cassandra,”
More name calling, indicating an absence of any substantive argument to go with the absence of any evidence or data.
“relying on wikipedia”
Outright dismissal of a source is another fallacy.
“(because he/she cannot be bothered to look at anything else),”
It amuses me when someone who claims a science background (like mathematics) presents him or herself as a mind reader. I chose wikipedia because its material is presented in a straight-forward way well within the reading skills of most people. Of course, the bluster is just another round of noise to cover the fact that you haven’t provided any substantiation for your claims. You provide nothing, but dismiss everything anyone provides. That is not the behavior of a serious scholar, Milesius.
The list of citations you quoted includes a 2004 dated work, you may not like the work, you may not agree with it, but its existence indicates that your prior claim regarding Dawkins not publishing since 1990, is false. Thatcher’s term ended in 1990, Dawkins published the following in the immediately subsequent decade:
“# Dawkins, R. (1990). “Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism”. Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.
# Dawkins, R. (June 1991). “Evolution of the Mind”. Nature 351 (6329): 686.
# Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). “Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube”. Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.
# Dawkins, R. (1994). “Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling”. Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
# Dawkins, R. (September 1995). “The Evolved Imagination”. Natural History 104 (9): 8.
# Dawkins, R. (December 1994). “Burying The Vehicle” ([dead link]). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994burying_the_vehicle.shtml.
# Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). “Religion and Science”. BioEssays 19 (8): 743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
# Dawkins, R. (1997). “The Pope’s message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
# Dawkins, R. (1998). “Intellectual Imposters”. Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.
# Dawkins, R. (1998). “Arresting evidence”. Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.”
You give us no reason to conclude that any of the above listed journals are inferior.
“Dear Dumb Ass,”
More name calling, which only indicates a complete lack of substantive data, as well as a complete lack of manners or “Christian virtue”. This is an appropriate place to remind of you something Jesus did say, something I’ve already posted once for you in reference to your verbal abuse:
Matthew 5: 21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. ”
“I never claimed 3 is greater than 55, nor did I claim that the year 2004 preceded 1990. You are both stupid and a liar.”
Setting aside the obvious sin in your statement above, you did assert, through a combination of implied and explicit statements that Dawkins’ 55 published works was of little value, while your own 3 co-authored (alleged, not verified) in a completely different field, made you an authority on the Bible. And you asserted that Dawkins’ had not published since Thatcher left office in 1990, yet he has published in academic journals as recently as 2004. For your statement to be correct, 2004 has to predate 1990. Either you did not research Mr. Dawkins’ history – something easy to do, or you were trying to mislead people with false information in order to discredit someone without doing any real, substantive work.
Just my opinion, but there seems to be a tremendous laziness in your work here. You don’t cite sources, dismiss any source that challenges your assertions, resort to name-calling and abusive behavior as a substitute for reason and logic.
Maybe I have too high a respect for scholars, but your posts here give the impression that your self-description is all fantasy. If you want people to believe that you are a scholar, in any field, you should start acting like one.
“You know you’re struggling when you cite from Wikipedia…”
People who don’t know any better know that.
If you have links to other sources that disprove any of the material from wikipedia that I have provided, by all means, post those links. Contribute something meaningful.
A new salvo has been fired in the perennial war over Wikipedia’s accuracy. Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Of course, the dismissal of wikipedia from Milisius comes someone who has presented no external citations or sources, only vague ‘so and so did x’ type claims. While Encyclopedia Britannica online is a pay site, and as such, may not be accessible to everyone reading.
Using such a source creates an impression of having something to hide – that the person making the citation is hoping others will not pay to join EB and double-check his/her quotes and uses of its material.
In the interest of transparency, I personally try to use sources that are openly available to anyone who wants to research further.
@JonathanHasHasIt: Do gays really have the the moral obligation to out homophobic gays they know?”
How about reframing it? Do people who know that someone is harming others have a moral obligation to stop the harm somehow?
I’d say yes. As it applies to Ricky, does it have to be in the form of outing his ex? Maybe not.
It occurred to me that this situation may be the undisclosed issue that lead Mr. Martin to come out – and he may have reasonably guessed that when he did, there would be inquiries into the political activities of the men linked to him.
Simply outing his ex publicly might have been interpreted as revenge, but, coming out himself and allowing others to put the pieces together . . .
@Cassandra: Well said Cassandra. There’s nothing to out about Verastegui because he has never been seen with a woman, yet he’s always lived with men. Sad that Ricky Martin, who uses Twitter to announce he’s going to the bathroom, can’t comment on this very hurtful and embarrassing situation.
@Cassandar: “Your reliance on name-calling and other forms of personal attack have the effect of invalidating your claims.”
I know! You’d think that someone allegedly well-educated such as he would know what “ad hominem” is and how it automatically invalidates one’s argument! But, then again, maybe his bible college didn’t think they needed to study critical thinking skills and Logical Fallacies, the way that mainstream historians are required to? Here’s a great academic resource on LFs: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Moreover, the vast majority of established professional historians are making rather stringent demands with the Editors for academic publishing houses, demanding that they cease publishing ANY works fills with LFs.
“Boswell’s work has not been discredited. A few minor league homophobes who make their living promoting discrimination against GLBTQ people have raised objections to one minor point, others have ‘refuted’ strawman arguments of their own creation that have no honest relationship to Boswell’s arguments.”
Heck, what few people acknowledge (least of all, his detractors) is that Boswell *obsessively* cited his sources, making his texts to be some seriously DENSE and VERBOSE reading!
“More important though, is that you did not even attempt to refute Boswell’s claims, heck, you didn’t even paraphrase them accurately. Your characterization “the Romans did it!” creates the strong impression that either you did not read either of Boswell’s texts on the subject, or that you are simply telling lies. Or both.”
Heck, and I wasn’t even relying on Boswell when discussing the Romans. He also engages in another LF, here, by alleging that limited evidence dictates an impossibly low number on which to draw of hinge a case-study. However, what it *actually* informs us is that, if two (especially prominent) examples can be found, than we should expect that it is FAR more wide-spread!
It’s especially horrendous that he asked for evidence, with citations, and then refused on principal to even acknowledge that factual and documented evidence!
“Your quote from Matthew 19:4-5 is a case of fraud, by the way, fraud through selectivity. The passage you point people to is a response to a tightly defined question, and to apply that to a broader perspective is dishonest at the very least.”
This is *another* LF, which I frequently despise in works of academia, called “Observational Selectivity”!
@Cassandar: “There seems to be a huge glut of ego involved in your responses.”
Actually, he seems to loathe and seems evidently hostile to all non-Christian cultures! How can samples of evidence for marriage between two men or two women be “irrelevant” because it comes from a powerful tribal culture is offensive!
“Of course, alleged expertise in mathematics makes you infallible in other subjects as well.”
Exactly! Mathematical sciences does NOT qualify him to speak on history *nor* Anthropology! And, as for me having had nothing published–I HAVE! Please tell him that it was a near 30-page study in which I was able to document and trace the Indo-European hearth-goddess motif back to its circumpolar/ shamanic antecedents, thus proving certain variants of the Gimbutas kurgan hypothesis! It was published 13 months ago.
“Just because you state something doesn’t mean it is accurate. Frankly, your use of personal attack and blanket dismissals create the impression that every thing state is a lie, based on the fact that your guesses about the character and motives of other people are predominantly derived from your own knowledge of your own character.”
There is another known LF, there, known as “sweeping generalizations” that he is engaging in. ;o)
@adman: “American culture fast becoming one of these ‘backwater’ cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.”
EXACTLY! His whole position is one based solely on Special Pleading (another LF)! In fact, he also seems to believe in “American superiority”, or the myth of “American exceptionalism” where we like to tout ourselves as “leaders of the world” and far more “progressive” and “enlightened”. Only thing is? When it comes to social progress, we are lagging far behind the Western world!
Oh, and if he’s reading this, I have *never* actually co-authored MY article! :oP Indeed, it was based off of original findings that no other scholar has come to the conclusions that I have found, which was surprising to me!
@Cassandar: Dayum, he’s been served! ;o) Incidentally, it’s also worth noting that Boswell himself was also a Christian with a ministry if I recall correctly. Indeed, it seems that he is of the mind of only citing severe Evangelicals y contrast to mainstream scholars and historians whom he dejects as so-called “apologists”, when the only Apologist is himself!
@Wade MacMorrighan: Do you really think it promotes egalitarianism to celebrate the fact that throughout history, the elite upperclasses have been men, many of whom lived in societies where sexual and emotional relationships with other men were privileged above all others? Athens had 250,000 inhabitants, 25,000 of whom were citizens. Guess who the 90% of non-citizens were — women of all ages, slaves of both genders, immigrants and anyone whose father was not a citizen. While the beauty, nobility and intellect of aristocratic young men were celebrated, the sole purpose of upperclass women was to be at home, barefoot and pregnant. Women weren’t allowed to leave their houses, let alone speak in public. As you move down the class structure, coercion, physical brutality, even death become acceptable ways of constraining non-citizens. It makes sense to me to take pride in the long and inspiring history of male-male love, but I also think it’s dangerous to romanticize this history as one free of social and political oppression.
@JonathanHasHasIt:
ricky does not have a moral obligation to comment on his relationship with e.v. or anyone else for that matter. why would you even say that?
i’ve had enough of e.v. already. don’t get me wrong he has a right to his opinions, even if they do not reflect my own. what i’ve had enough of is this: leave ricky’s children out of this! children should be off limits to tabloid fodder. say whatever about ricky, it goes with celeb territory. just leave the kids out of it.
@Cassandra: Cassandra, if you “love” this guy, I have a feeling that you will “love” the work of Profs. Ronald Hutton and Norman Cohn, too! :oP (Ugh…scholars that pull this crap over and over again really piss me off!)
“David Wright approached the texts from the perspective of a conservative theology, Boswell from the perspective of someone trained in language itself.”
Not to mention the FACT that Boswell comes to his work as a strictly trained academic Historian, indeed, the head Prof. of History at Yale Univ.!
Wright, on the contrary, has only written about Boswell in dismissive terms, failing to grasp the deeper academic evidence disclosed by Boswell, and only choosing to take cheap pot-shots, Indeed, Wright’s alleged “discrediting” of Boswell chiefly amount to sweeping generalizations. But, as far as Wright’s objectivity, we have this statement from the author of the People With a History Page, who knew him:
“David Wright, a former professor of mine at the University of Edinburgh, with real scholarly skills. But he is also conservative evangelical, and >>>an elder in one of the most theologically conservative congregations in Edinburgh<<>>He began by making overtly homophobic jokes<<< about Boswell's use of the word "gay". This may have represented Edinburgh provincialism (homosexuality only having become legal there in 1979) , but it was excruciating to sit through."
Wright hardly seems like a reputable source! Indeed, most of his articles seem to be published in Christian journals and encyclopedias, rather than un-biased journals of historical studies.
Indeed, according to a review Wright wrote (say that 5 times fast!), he is eventually humbled before Boswell: "Wright also takes issue with Boswell's claim in SSU that the general argument of CSTH "has met with little opposition over the intervening decade". But Boswell may well have been quite justified in this claim: the many attacks on CSTH tended to focus on specific issues, not on the general program of recovering a "gay" history, not Boswell's essentially uncontested argument that virulent and widespread ecclesiastical attacks on homosexual activity really only unroll in the later middle ages. With SSU, Wright cannot bring himself to deny that Boswell has found something of interest – he gives the Scottish judicial verdict of "not proven" on the book, and notes that it displays "flashing insight" and "extraordinary skills and industry"."
Agreed! Though, I must admit, I have found that I seem to think more highly of scholars than they appear to think of themselves, otherwise, they would not engage in a Christian Apologetic polemics that they do, in light of both the counter evidence, and a counter academic consensus (chiefly from the Continent of Europe!). But, this field is mainly in medieval Witchcraft Studies as a survival of Paganism!
@Cassandra: “Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.”
Interesting note about Britannica, which comes from my own article both reviewing and critiquing the collection of essays on Witchcraft Studies edited by Prof. Kathryne A. Edward’s: Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief & Folklore in Early-Modern Europe. Sixteenth-Century Essays & Studies, Vol. 62. (Truman State University Press, 2002).
“When I first became aware of this book, I grew increasingly concerned that it might bear an over-riding agenda, due to the glowing reviews bestowed upon it by numerous Catholic Journals excerpted upon the Truman State University web-site;[1] a fear that is well-founded when considering the fact that it has been proven that the Catholic Church has had a hand in editing the Encyclopedia Britannica (among other academic works of reference) in an effort to mitigate their culpability during the Inquisition and suppression of paganism, as well as redacting several further works that were thought to present a “counter-Christian” thesis. For more on this, please consult the following resources by an important early twentieth-century atheist scholar, Joseph McCabe: “Lies & Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica: How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference”;[2] “The Columbia Encyclopedia’s Crimes Against the Truth: How a Popular Reference Work is being used as a Weapon Against Free Culture and Twisted to fit the Purposes of Lying Obscurantists”;[3] and “Rome’s Syllabus of Condemned Opinion: The Last Blast of the Catholic Church’s Medieval Trumpet”.[4]
“Joseph McCabe found that the Catholic Church was actively lobbying for, and succeeding in changing encyclopedia entries to either reduce or omit any information controversial to Catholic doctrine (eg. Dying-and-Rising deities); in some cases with out-and-out censorship or even deceptive material; though, in most cases they employed a specious “softening” approach. It is believed that these mendacious tactics are still quite extensive in many contemporary reference works, and that they are continuing to go on unchecked, and unwatched!
“Thankfully, however, I can rest assured that my initial fears noted for this particular review were unwarranted. …” [pp. 1].
“In the interest of transparency, I personally try to use sources that are openly available to anyone who wants to research further.”
And, I commend you for this! Several scholars I have witnessed over the years (one a head of History at Bristol Univ.) tries to hide behind hard-to-find evidence and even pulls WHOPPING LFs; while another (now deceased) made his reputation by lying about Margaret Murray in an effort to portray her as a fraud, and as duplicitous, by claiming that she had knowingly omitted textual documentation that would have discredited her when, of the texts that he cited (claiming she had omitted them) Murray considered their opposing insights VERY carefully! But, that doesn’t matter to most historians, who know accept Cohn’s criticisms as “standard”. And, anyone who criticisms him is seem as a supporter of Murray (bathwater, baby, and all!) and reviled (mocked, actually) as a “Murrayite”! Some scholars (such as that fellow from Bristol) fail to acknowledge this, claim it’s somehow “unimportant”, and even fail to censure Cohn for his sexist and ageist statements made against Murray as a reason for discrediting her…
@Cassandra: Thanks, as always for your clear logic, factual data and links 2 sources. Your ability to engage in a constructive debate here is much admired.
@anniika: Brava! Well said. You are a brilliant chick-if you are indeed a woman. That is sexy. You just gave me an intellectual orgasm! I want to fuck your brain! The Gods! Does that make me a “Questioning Youth”?
I can’t believe the hateful rhetoric being spewed in these comments. A little tolerance for others goes a long way to get others to listen to your point of view. Eduardo Verastegui personal life is none of my business. All I know is he his doing great work, he believes the unborn have rights and he is openly vocal about his point of view. As far as his involvement with Ricky Martin, that was decades ago. He admits to having some regrets about his past and that he has embraced his religious beliefs and is more devout. Not unlike Ricky Martin, Eduardo has decided to take a different path then the one he traveled in his youth. We should be tolerant of both these men, these decisions cannot be easy to make.
Don’t be hating cause he’s Hot & not into the “men on men trend” he’s a straight worshiper of God! and Thank God for that! It’s about time there are hot men that AREN’T GAY! lol…
you are so hateful, just because one doesn’t agree with your point of views you desire evil things for others. you who preach against hate you yourself hate others. is that being gay? or so happy hateful men of lust.
Eduardo Verastegui is nothing more than a disgusting rotten sack of tattered TRASH! He is a pathetic excuse and an embrassment as a man, as a latino and a Mexican. And on thing I don’t respect is a hypocrite or ridiculous people, and in this case…he has worst of both worlds, and lord knows we have enough smut, slime and pollution in this world and he is just another garbage back on the street that is ready to be put in his place. I was absolutely appauled by his comments about Ricky Martin’s sexual orientation unveiling and supporting the law to ban same-sex marriages…in which being a homosexual, a bisexual, trisexual or a whatever is not a mistake. The only mistake is allowing bottom feeding ‘pobre muerte de hambre’ pigs like Eduardo to have a voice in the community and spread this abomination, this pervsion anymore. I don’t have much to say about him, and nor do I think highly of him. So all I will say is I’ll be laughing at him when he rots in his own filth.
To Bryan: Now this comment is about two year too late but the matter of fact is: Eduardo Verastequi is a man of God. Yes, he made a mistake of thinking he was gay, he tested it and saw that it was wrong – thank the dear Lord that he saw the right way to go. It just goes to show, gays ARE NOT BORN that way, no matter what anybody says, it is a choice in life you make, and that is the freewill God gave to men to see what they will do with it. Giving free will to men meant we should go out and live His will. As you can see, the world is going down the drains because of the freewill that is being abused in this world.
Why do you not rather applaud him for the good he is doing, and the change he was willing to make to ensure that this world becomes a better place?
Have you, after posting your hatred comment about Eduardo ever stop for a minute and ask yourself – Now what did I do today that is good? No, you did not, you decided to degrade a man who stands up for what he believes in and no man is without sin, but he realized he was wrong and made it right. Did you do the right thing? Just think of how many people are wishing bad things on you at this moment. It is sad, really.
To Eduardo:
Eduardo, if you ever read this, I have been following you closely for quite a time now, reading all about you – you are a fine man, keep doing what you do. If only there were more men like you, with the pure heart and soul you have, this world will be a much much better place.
This theological debate whilst entertaining is rather like two bald men arguing over a comb whether it was written in Hebrew Greek Aramaic or Clingon is irrelevant, it is a fairy story or rather a collection of fables cobbled together by misogynistic homophobic old men and written in the pre scientific age when they solemnly believed the world was flat and demons stalked the land ,one might as well believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy all very harmless until one basis the law of the land on it.
Do you call promoting intolerance and inequality “doing good”? That’s what this man is essentially doing with his work as an “activist.” What Verastegui experienced in his personal life is none of our business, and frankly nobody cares at this point; but what he does publicly hurts an entire community, and may very well make life more difficult for people with doubt or fears about their sexuality, particularly for those who happen to be in the Hispanic community.
Instead of casting ad hominem attacks on posters on this board, maybe you should try taking on their arguments for once, that is, if we assume you are equipped with the mental capacity to do so.
Eduardo Verastegui was made a star by the monopolistic Televisa, Mexico’s national tv station. He is not famous outside of Mexico. His boy band would lip sync during most of their shows. He was known for dating the governor of his birthplace. He dated Luis Miguel’s wife when they starred in the soap opera Sonadoras. Aracely Arambula told a reporter Eduardo dumped her for Ricky Martin. Yes he is gay. He’s single and he’s Mexican. He thinks he can act and sing but down in Mexico we know that he was made a star by all the sugar daddies he slept with since leaving his sleepy town back in Tamaulipas.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Cam
Fine, I hate to say this but I hope his being gay prevents him from getting jobs in the Mexican entertainment industry, and that none of the gay friendly venues in Entertainment will hire him either. he is the worst kind of hypocrite, he wasn’t even somebody who hadn’t dealt with their sexuality yet, he was actively sleeping with guys if this is true AND making ads supporting Prop 8. What a little Roy Cohn Douchebag.
AMC
I don’t think you should cite TV y Novelas as a credible source, given TV y Novelas is the Mexican/Latin American equivalent of US Weekly/OK! Magazine.
Even if Verastegui were gay and had dated Martin (though I’d like better proof than one reader’s opinions and a tabloid article), I don’t think his views on gay marriage put him anywhere on the same level as Jesse James and what he’s done to Sanda Bullock.
scott ny'er
this dude is effin’ hot. I saw him in the JLo vid, ain’t if funny, and seriously, he is beautiful. Then I looked him up and read he was a committed Christian. So I assumed he was straight. I still don’t know the truth but to hear he was supporting Prop 8. Well pretty on the outside but ugly on the inside.
I do think Christianity or religion has again brainwashed another person.
delurker again
I get so angry at the No on 8 campaign when I see commercials like this. Did anyone think to make Spanish language ads on tv and radio to reach Hispanic voters in fricken California? Because the Yes on 8 side sure did.
beto
First at all Queerty, is VERASTEGUI, second, he is staunchly catholic, married, and yeah, trough almost all Latin America there were (and still are) rumors that he is in our boat and among the men he dated was also Ricky Martin, old news. And speaking about the topic, he was at my place (Barranquilla, Colombia) last couple of weeks sponsoring Catholic Christian events and speaking against abortion and homosexuality and promoting his new movie (an anti-abortion movie, go figure). He rabidly but also diplomatically denied in a press conference here all those rumors that were dormant just after Martin officially walked out of the closet.
Almost anyone who is not a religious nut (read. fanatic) agrees that he’s a severe closet case and worst of all, a huge self-denial guy. My personal opinion is that he’s homo and brainwashed.
Time will tell the truth. Any takers?
beto
And yeah, he’s HOT
Jaroslaw
He can be a committed Christian. Fine. But…. the Constitution of the USA allows freedom of religion.
Which is exactly why Prop 8 is wrong. Everyone should be free to marry who they want. He is free to practice the religion of his choice PRECISELY because of the Consitution.
Gay or straight how dare he use the freedom (and everyone else of the same persuasion) to DENY freedoms to others.
It has been said before but bears repeating – the US Constitution has NEVER before been used to limit the rights of a specified group (after slavery). IE Prohibition to drink alcohol applied to EVERYONE.
AlwaysGay
@delurker again: The cast of Ugly Betty made commercials individually for NO on Prop 8.
If he is gay then he went along with the haterosexual supremacist ideology he was surrounded by from birth. Those of us who have come out AND acknowledged why it was so hard AND why anti-gay bigotry is so pervasive know the source of all the anti-gay bigotry lies with heterosexuals and that it is our jobs to fight it. Those of us that do that are strong. Water carriers for haterosexual supremacist ideology like Ty Mansfield, Larry Craig, Donnie McClurkin, and Todd Holland are weak and cruel.
Anyone speaks Spanish?
video from April 7, 2010
Eduardo Verastegui habla sobre Ricky Martin
http://www.canalrcnmsn.com/noticias/verastegui_habla_sobre_ricky_martin
Bad Gay
November 01, 2008
The gays MADE Eduardo Verastegui, in return he stabs them in the back
Why it’s Eduardo Verestegui! And ever since he was introduced as the Latino face of the “Yes on 8” campaign I have heard nothing but shock and disgust from most of my Spanish-speaking Latino friends throughout the country.
Part of the shock for some friends is that they assumed Verastegui was gay (a lot of them grew up watching him perform with Kiero and playing leads in popular Mexican soap operas). I mean, just by the photos and video above there’s no doubt in my mind he knew exactly who his fanbase was and that it was tres-gay. So forgive some from feeling ultra-betrayed.
http://blabbeando.blogspot.com/2008/11/gays-made-eduardo-verastegui-in-return.html
gilber
“the sacred union of a men and a woman” according to verastuguis’ video hahahhahahahha after all the heterosexuals deserve piety, the guy who commented on his video said that ricky should be decapitated for contaminating this world with his queerness.there should be no surprise that these demons cognize heterosexuality as holy and homosexuality as impure or sick,they care inverted to core, they will get a huge surprise, if only they knew.any mind that enjoys generating heterophilia simply don’t know what sort of monster they are catering to.sad but true
Marcus
The Ricky Martin Story keeps on giving. I love it.
Cam
No. 2 · AMC said..
Even if Verastegui were gay and had dated Martin (though I’d like better proof than one reader’s opinions and a tabloid article), I don’t think his views on gay marriage put him anywhere on the same level as Jesse James and what he’s done to Sanda Bullock.
___________________
Are you fucking kidding me? you’re saying that one guy cheating on his wife is somehow much worse than somebody who advocates making laws to insure the second class status of an entire group of millions of people? And worse…that he is one of that group but pretending not to be? What kind of screwed up world do you live in?!
Wade MacMorrighan
To witness self-loathing Gay men is absolutely heart-wrenching to me! If only they knew of the positions of religious/ shamanic and civil power we used to wield on every country on Earth! And, it’s this ignorance that Evangelicals pray on, I think… It’s a spiritual monopoly!
Mike L.
@Anyone speaks Spanish?: You know it pisses me of that that SOB!!! is spreading the lie that marriage has been only between a man and a woman for thousands of years in all parts of the world, I guess he didn’t pay attention to the prop 8 trial nor does he realize that there are countries who practiced polygamy back when jesus was before him and even now. And there were same-sex marriage-like ceremonies in the roman times before xtians took over and started persecuting them.
What a dbag, it really pissed me of that thsi Mexicanito pendejo, baboso, idiota, hijo de la mugre who isn’t even a US citizen was advocating against Americans’ rights when he himself isn’t even an American.
It’s one thing for someone to protests for civil rights of other ppls in the world and another to decry equality for other ppl’s civil rights.
tjr101
On a much lighter note, if he is in fact gay and supposedly had sex with Ricky Martin of all people what in the hell made him such a self hating homophobe after that? Was Ricky that bad?!?
David Ehrenstein
What’s with this “if” and “supposedly” crap?
Milesius
@Mike L: Dear pretentious moron, where are your citations from credible, scholarly sources (i.e., not gay “marriage” advocating pettifoggers) for your claim that “there were same-sex marriage-like ceremonies in the roman times before xtians took over and started persecuting them”?
Marc
@tjr101: No, Ricky was so good that Eduardo didn’t want sex with any other man!
Ogre Magi
Another sad victim of Christianity
Mike L.
@Milesius: Ok I jumped the gun on that one haven’t done as much looking into as I should, but Um “Moron”? And oh yeah the Roman-esque name?
I still stand w the rest of my opinion though 😛
ewe
Would someone please elaborate on the “velvet mafia”? What a joke!
Wade MacMorrighan
@Milesius:
Allow me to answer this one, as I’ve studied it for several years (and, yes, these are either source material or penned by serious professional scholars who are, or have, taught at a university):
* Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, by Prof. John Boswell
* Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, by Ibid.
* Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love, by Will Roscoe (Anthropologist)
* The Zuni Man-Woman, by Ibid.
* Queer Myths: A Gay Men’s Myth Book, by Ibid
* “A History of Same-Sex Marriage” in the Virginia Law Review, 79:7.
* “We Will Get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will Not ‘Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every Marriage'”, by Nancy D. Polikoff in Virginia Law Review, 79:7.
* Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28, 62.13 Old Translation of passage at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
* Herodian Roman History 5.6.1-5.6.2 Old Translation of passage at: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/herodian_05_book5.htm
* Suetonius in his “Nero”
These last three references show that The Roman Emperors Nero and Elegabalus, respectively, were each married to men under the auspices and cheers of the state and citizens; each wedding encompassed the traditional Roman ceremonies, which culminated in their new husband being introduced to their ancestral hearth-flame, the goddess Vesta. Moreover, these ancient historians recorded that their respective husband was the “spouse” of the Emperor.
However, the two Virginia Law Review articles, as well as Prof. Roscoe’s book on Shamanism each disclose that marriages between two men were a joyous part of the Chuckchi shamanic sect/ culture. An identical belief is also extent amid the Native American plains Indians!
In spite of this overwhelming evidence (yes, even disclosed in the Fed. Prop 8 Trial by professional Historians), why do you disregard out-of-hand the statements made by “Mike L.”?
Given more time than what I have, now, I could list many other sources of evidence, Milesius.
Antonio
There was a rumor that one of the Ricky Martin’s kids is eduardo’s…… i read it a year ago on MIRA that trashy magazine!!they compared it to Eduardo when he was a child!!!… Eduardo became famoso when he did that popular NOVELA Sonadoras! back in 2000…. he’s HOT!!!!! Hay MUCHA tela que cortar!!! my grandma used to say!!!
TONYD
You cannot tell me there isn’t a person, glbtq specifically for this site, that has dirty little secrets- now imagine if they could talk or had videos or pictures! No one should talk about past exes, but imagine if they wrote a book or went on a talk show tour- I’d probably be a hot mess like Lindsay Lohan!
Milesius
@ Wade MacMorrighan:
I knew someone was going to cite Boswell’s _discredited_ gay apologia.
“Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love”–I can tell this is bs, right off the bat. Jesus had nothing to do with shamanism or same-sex love (See Matthew 19:4-5). Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception.
The only thing you have are a few despised, morally dissolute emperors. That does not establish his claim.
Milesius
@Mike L: Perhaps I was a little harsh with you, so you have my apologies (provisionally :D). I have little patience for gay apologia, though. There may be legitimate arguments for extending the rights of marriage to same sex couples but “the Romans did it!” ain’t one of ’em.
Wade MacMorrighan
@Milesius: Boswell’s work is FAR from discredited! Controversial at most, but NOT discredited by academic standards… Have a look at the following website by Fordham University that has tracked the scholars who have reviewed it favorably; while those opposed to is generally hold religious animus: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
As for Roscoe’s text on Shamanism, it has little to do with conflating Jesus with EITHER shamanism or same-sex love (which, as the author clearly states, does not equate to homoeroticism in the context that he is using it). Ever heard of not judging a book by its cover?! Also, when speaking of other cultures and their allowance of same-sex marriage, I suggest that you NOT employ your fraudulent book of myths that you call “The Bible”. Everyone knows they are based purely on earlier Mesopotamian or Sumerian pagan myths and narratives, anyway!
Hell, even the Anthropological Association of America, which oversees a HUGE body of academic, data, and scholarship, has released a policy statement in favor of Marriage Equality (deflating the “traditional marriage” meme) based upon what they have observed in countless cultures. Your statement just goes to show that you have almost no understanding of academia, and various specialized fields–it’s pathetic, really.
And, again, you discount the shamanic Chuckchi people whose Gay shamans married men, which is an established fixture of the Native American plains “Indians”. I suggest that you kindly take your Bible and do something good with it, like shove it up your holier-than-thou ass! The history of Christianity is the history of oppression! As a historian, myself, I don’t suffer fools gladly…
Wade MacMorrighan
@Milesius: “There may be legitimate arguments for extending the rights of marriage to same sex couples but ‘the Romans did it!’ ain’t one of ’em.”
That makes just about as much insufferable “sense” as those I have seen dare to proclaim that, since Marriage Equality never been recognized in the U.S.A. (despite earlier native cultures that have practiced it) than we shouldn’t start, now! Do you even KNOW what REAL “Traditional Marriage” *is*?! It was about buying a wife, and viewing her as your property! Until very recently, a man was legally allowed to beat his wife…
Marriage, today, is chiefly about love, and wanting to form inviolable kinship that government nor family can interfere with, as much as they might want to. It’s about saying that this is the person I want to grow old with! Do you even realize that most non-Gay people look at un-married, albeit committed Gay couples’ relationships as if they are not serious relationships, until they are married?!
Milesius
@Wade MacMorrighan:
Boswell’s work is discredited. The site you cited, while it has a pretense of objectivity, is nonetheless the work of a gay prof who was arrested for dealing cocaine at a gay bar.
I am aware of the Anthropological Association of America’s statement. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. As I said, most cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures.
As for my knowledge of scholarship, I am coauthor on three papers thus far, which is, I’m sure, three more than you have to your credit. (I am in the mathematical sciences.)
“And, again, you discount the shamanic Chuckchi people whose Gay shamans married men, which is an established fixture of the Native American plains ‘Indians’.”–Yes, I do. Even if that is correct, I could not care less.
Oh, and this:
“Everyone knows they are based purely on earlier Mesopotamian or Sumerian pagan myths and narratives, anyway!”
Is a form of pseudoargumentation known as proof surrogate. It is also manifestly false.
Finally, there are no such things as “memes.” “Memetics” is a pseudoscientific concept floated by a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output.
Milesius
@Wade MacMorrighan:
Not one of our state constitutions or the federal constitution is based on “earlier native cultures,” so what they did or did not do is completely irrelevant, unless gays who are clamoring for gay “marriage” wish to relocate to Native American reservations, which is fine by me. Quite frankly, I do not care what rights gay “marriage” advocates think they _should_ have, only those rights which they necessarily have under state and federal constitutions, which are to be read in the socio-historical contexts in which they were written and amended.
Cassandar
Milesius
“@Mike L: Dear pretentious moron,”
Your reliance on name-calling and other forms of personal attack have the effect of invalidating your claims.
“I knew someone was going to cite Boswell’s _discredited_ gay apologia.”
Boswell’s work has not been discredited. A few minor league homophobes who make their living promoting discrimination against GLBTQ people have raised objections to one minor point, others have ‘refuted’ strawman arguments of their own creation that have no honest relationship to Boswell’s arguments.
More important though, is that you did not even attempt to refute Boswell’s claims, heck, you didn’t even paraphrase them accurately. Your characterization “the Romans did it!” creates the strong impression that either you did not read either of Boswell’s texts on the subject, or that you are simply telling lies. Or both.
“Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception.”
This is essentially libel on your part, and it is another case of you simply dismissing, without evidence, sources that challenge your unverified assertions. You need to repent.
Your quote from Matthew 19:4-5 is a case of fraud, by the way, fraud through selectivity. The passage you point people to is a response to a tightly defined question, and to apply that to a broader perspective is dishonest at the very least.
The honest thing to do, Milesius, would have to start with the question Jesus answered: 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Asked a question in the explicit context of heterosexual relationships, Jesus answered within that context. It proves nothing about other contexts.
Further, you stopped short of the point Jesus makes:
7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So Jesus is asserting that remarriage after divorce is adultery, a crime that Leviticus imposes the death penalty upon. Yet remarriage after divorce is accepted, even celebrated by the majority of fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality. And even that is not the end of the message:
“10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus acknowledges, without condemnation, a far broader understanding of male sexuality than fundamentalists respect – one that includes men who have no sexual attraction to women from birth.
Mostly though, calling Mike L. a “pretentious moron” is clearly addressed by Jesus:
Matthew 5: 21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “
Cassandar
Milesius
“Boswell’s work is discredited.”
On who’s say so? Your assertion without evidence is not convincing.
“The site you cited, while it has a pretense of objectivity, is nonetheless the work of a gay prof who was arrested for dealing cocaine at a gay bar.”
And your use of ad hominem does not strengthen your case.
“I am aware of the Anthropological Association of America’s statement. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. As I said, most cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures.”
There seems to be a huge glut of ego involved in your responses.
“As for my knowledge of scholarship, I am coauthor on three papers thus far, which is, I’m sure, three more than you have to your credit. (I am in the mathematical sciences.)”
Of course, alleged expertise in mathematics makes you infallible in other subjects as well.
1 Samuel 2:3 (New International Version)
3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
Proverbs 16:5
The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 18:12
Before his downfall a man’s heart is proud, but humility comes before honor.
Proverbs 21:4
Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin!
Proverbs 21:24
The proud and arrogant man-“Mocker” is his name; he behaves with overweening pride.
“Yes, I do. Even if that is correct, I could not care less.”
More of that ol’ ego going on.
“It is also manifestly false.”
And that is an empty dismissl.
“Finally, there are no such things as “memes.” “Memetics” is a pseudoscientific concept floated by a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output.”
As is that.
Just because you state something doesn’t mean it is accurate. Frankly, your use of personal attack and blanket dismissals create the impression that every thing state is a lie, based on the fact that your guesses about the character and motives of other people are predominantly derived from your own knowledge of your own character.
Milesius
@Cassandra:
Read Matthew 19:4-5 again (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
The purposeful complementarity of men and women rules out homoerotic acts, let alone “marriage.” This is an obvious point; your inability to apprehend it is not my problem.
And your claims re: the refutations of Boswell’s “scholarship” are manifestly false. David Wright was an excellent scholar and he completely destroyed Boswell’s claims concerning the homoerotic acts and the NT. I suggest having someone read his articles to you.
Look, I know you are a poseur. Others here may not know it but that is because they are dim bulbs and/or you are telling them what they want to hear.
Oh, and you completely misrepresented Jesus’ message re: “eunuchs.” It is about sexual continence/abstinence, not homosexuals.
The transparent lies of gay apologists are tiresome. Quit while you are behind.
Cassandar
Milesius “a mediocre biologist with a pathetic research output”
I have a low opinion of Richard Dawkins, considered to be the person who coined or adapted the term ‘meme’, however, it is only fair to point out Mr. Dawkins has 55 papers, books and articles to his credit, according to wikipedia.
Milesius “I am coauthor on three papers thus far”
I am not a mathematician, nor someone pretending to be, but I learned in 1st grade that 55 is a bigger number than 3.
adman
@Milesius: “Many cultural anthropologists are pretentious morons who study irrelevant, backwater cultures, and this one you cited is no exception”
American culture fast becoming one of these “backwater” cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.
Milesius
“I am not a mathematician, nor someone pretending to be, but I learned in 1st grade that 55 is a bigger number than 3.”
I’m at the beginning of my career. Dawkins has not published research since the Thatcher administration. (Besides which, the research he published is of questionable worth.)
Cassandar
Milisius
“Read Matthew 19:4-5 again (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)”
Your insults only diminish your integrity, not mine.
“He answered,”
Jesus answered a very specific question. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Now, any real scientist understands that the context of data is crucial to understanding the data itself.
“The purposeful complementarity of men and women rules out homoerotic acts, let alone “marriage.” This is an obvious point; your inability to apprehend it is not my problem.”
First this aside.
complementarity: the quality or state of being complementary.
So, you use the longer word form, even though the shorter form would be as accurate both in meaning and grammatically. Yet you accused someone else of being “pretentious”: Making or marked by an extravagant outward show;
In my opinion, using the longer form of the word complementary could fairly be called pretentious. Just something to consider, of course.
Now, back to complementary: Supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks
Same-sex relationships are just as capable of being complementary as mix-sex relationships. On some levels, same-sex relationships are better at supplying the mutual needs of those involved. And experientially, homoerotic sexual expression is far better at ensuring complementary experience – men know generally better than women what feels good to a man’s body, women generally know better what feels good to a woman’s body, both sexes tend to be better at communicating about sexual experiences and sexual pleasure to others of their own gender.
Your characterization is convenient, but limited at best.
Further, marriage is not restricted to those who reproduce, nor is reproduction its primary purpose, and the complementary nature of same-sex relationships is just as well served by the legal contract of marriage as heterosexual relationships are.
“And your claims re: the refutations of Boswell’s “scholarship” are manifestly false. David Wright was an excellent scholar and he completely destroyed Boswell’s claims concerning the homoerotic acts and the NT. I suggest having someone read his articles to you.”
You are making false claims and relying on insults and bullying behavior, empty bluster in place of facts. If Wright’s arguments are so strong – quote them. A real scientist would as a matter of course quote the material he challenged.
Re David Wright: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
“he is also conservative evangelical, and an elder in one of the most theologically conservative congregations in Edinburgh. Moreover, he has been attacking Boswell for decades now, beginning with an oral presentation, at which I was present. to the Graduate Seminar of the Edinburgh History department (in 1981 or 82). He began by making overtly homophobic jokes about Boswell’s use of the word “gay”. ”
You’ve got a bigot dismissing Boswell’s work because of Boswell’s sexual orientation.
“Look, I know you are a poseur.”
Ah, the fallacy of ad hominem.
“Oh, and you completely misrepresented Jesus’ message re: “eunuchs.” It is about sexual continence/abstinence, not homosexuals.”
No, I made no misrepresentation at all.
“The transparent lies of gay apologists are tiresome. Quit while you are behind.”
Empty dismissals and bluster are poor replacements for scholarship and integrity.
You’ve repeatedly sinned against me with false accusations. Please repent.
Milesius
“American culture fast becoming one of these ‘backwater’ cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.”
Byron’s “with just enough of learning to misquote” characterizes you quite well.
Heterosexist. LOL.
Milesius
“You’ve got a bigot dismissing Boswell’s work because of Boswell’s sexual orientation.”
Damn you are dumb. First:
BIGOT, n.
One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
Second:
David Wright’s criticisms of Boswell are solid. He knows the Greek as well as everything else; Boswell does not, which is apparent from his sophomoric mistakes.
Cassandar
“I’m at the beginning of my career. Dawkins has not published research since the Thatcher administration. (Besides which, the research he published is of questionable worth.)”
There’s always an excuse.
Hmm. Marget Thatcher’s adminstration ran from 1979 to 1990. http://www.biography.com/articles/Margaret-Thatcher-9504796
Richard Dawkins has published as recently as 2004 academically, and in the mainstream, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins
It would be reasonable to expect a mathematician to know that the year 2004 came after the year 1990.
I don’t like the man, because of his abusive and strident prejudice against people of faith, however, in all fairness, his credentials for coining the word ‘meme’ are much better than your credentials for religion.
The terrible irony for both you and Dawkins is that you are both peers in prejudice. You malign GLBTQ people, he maligns people of faith, both of you insist that your word alone outweighs anyone else’s testimony, scholarship, or experiences.
You and Dawkins are peas in pod taking pot shots in different directions.
adman
@Milesius: Neologisms perfectly suit the dishonest quality and character of a guy like you, prove me wrong. I want to hear you disprove Queer Theory next, since Cassandar has rubbed your filthy little nose in it so well thus far. Indulge me?
Cassandar
“Damn you are dumb. First:
BIGOT, n.
One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”
LOL. Yes, a man who obstinately and zealously is attached to the idea that homosexuality is a sin is a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
big·ot (b?g’?t)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
From my prior citation (you haven’t provided any so far, by the way): “He began by making overtly homophobic jokes”
Of course, the dismissive attack on my intelligence does nothing to substantiate your own claims.
“David Wright’s criticisms of Boswell are solid. He knows the Greek as well as everything else; Boswell does not, which is apparent from his sophomoric mistakes.”
Empty words. From wikipedia’s biography:
“A gifted medieval philologist, he worked in, among other languages, Catalan, Old Church Slavonic, Ancient Greek, Arabic, and Latin[citation needed]. Boswell received his doctorate from Harvard University in 1975, whereupon he joined the Yale University history faculty as its rising star; he was made full professor in 1982. In 1987, Boswell helped organize and found the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale, which is now the Research Fund for Lesbian and Gay Studies. He was named the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History in 1990, when he was also appointed to a two-year term as chair of the Yale history department. Boswell was a gifted and devoted teacher. His undergraduate lectures in medieval history were renowned for their organization, erudition, and wit, with the course often making the “top 10″ for highest enrollment. ”
In contrast, I presented a rebuttal of certain OT testaments texts, from Leviticus in particular, noted that those texts were written in Hebrew, and you tried to dismiss my remarks by extolling your alleged knowledge of Greek.
It created the appearance that you do not know the difference between Greek and Hebrew. Are you a Yale professor?
Do you know what a philologist is? For anyone who does not:
phi·lol·o·gy
? ?/f??l?l?d?i/ Show Spelled[fi-lol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the study of literary texts and of written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.
David Wright was not a philologist. He was a distinguished evangelical church historian and theologian. http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries/Professor-David–Wright.3805020.jp
His career was focused on promoting conservative theology and his expertise was not in linguistics, but theology. Boswell’s argument is in part a philological one.
You though, are neither a philologist or a theologian, and seem to have difficulty with basic math (55 greater than 3, 2004 comes after 1990). And you’ve done a very poor job of substantiating any of your claims, behaving in a completely unprofessional manner for one claiming a career in academia.
gilber
male and anti-male complementary?hahahhahah… and the same flesh? that kind of thinking can only come from a hermaphrodite wannabe.i’m a MD in neurology, heterosexuality is a deformation of homosexuality at all levels.i have been studying heterosexuality as a scientist and as a gnostic by working with the isomorphic Maxima,these Maxima constantly state the real meaning of sin ,which is a rebellion to the commandments given by our Maxima to the sexual deviant’s Maxima(disparity) or Ascendent,the reason we are here is beautiful and at the same time sad but we can have the certainty that we are right and every thing we do is right because our Maxima is so. Heterophilia, be toward a human,animal,extraterrestrial or a robot is just that, a perversion,like i said before you can reproduce in theory with infinite opposite structures,but you should only have SEXUALITY with only one kind, your own sex,which is the only one you have the highest physical certainty of sexually belonging to.As i said, heterosexuals are controlled by a MAXIMA, this Maxima is a mental corruption of the holy spirits who do not have the dichotomy male-female,indeed they are bound to alike energies.any attempt of morality by a heterophilic mind is pretty much a blasphemy since as i said they are controlled by a much greater force that generates putrid thought-forms. all homosexuals should immediately recognize the schemes of these low forces operating in these creation.Heterosexuality is a putrid and shameful moral and mental condition especially in the realms in which the Maxima of “Darkness” has its core energy.if there were a machine to increase the sexual dimorphism of these deforme-looking anti-couple they would know what kind of mess they would be getting into, the anti-coupling of man and antimale, is a psudonatural form of psuedocoupling,not to say that it is also not universal at all.the only couple that are universal are those formed and composed isomorphically with the same structures inside and out,because under any change the parity remain constant, this property has strong physical,mental and spiritual implications, that many homosexuals are blind to, since Darkness is corrupting and twisting the thought-forms of the non sexual deviants MAXIMA.what you experience as a simple human conflict is actually a bigger one.this is the reason why after magnification and amplification occurs, those who are putrid shall become even nastier ,and those who are pure will become purer.heterosexuality is a mind that has been generated before with awful consequences to the ethereal dimension, with the subsequent creation of two opposing “MAXIMA”,one constant(good) and the other with a Minima(evil).there is no other process of purification, they are things that i can’t explain now, but it has to do by the fact that the Maxima has Minima that approaches asymptotically the constant values of the pure one,it is complex to understand at first, and this Minima is strongly actively operating in order to corrupt and erode the morality of the homos and homo-“sexuals”, those inside the entrapment and outside(the isosexual point).the truth about heterosexuality in HUMANS, is very corrupted to suit the heterosexual agenda, in fact, heterosexuality has a totally different meaning to homosexuals,which would be to EXCHANGE “homosexualities.”
OhYeah
@beto: Verastegui is not married. He has an American sugar daddy who lives in Key Biscayne (who is married and has kids, and is a fanatic Christian), and who funds Verastegui’s movies.
JonathanHasHasIt
Ricky Martin has the duty, the moral obligation, to come out and explain what his relationship was with Verastegui, since they both lived together in Miami when Verastegui first came to the States. Verastegui has turned into an enemy of the gays. Will Martin step up to the plate?
Milesius
Dear Moron (Cassandra):
I am not interested in your internet citations. I am aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (except for a portion written in Aramaic). Apparently, you are not aware that it was translated into Greek and that version of the OT (i.e., the Septuagint) is the one quoted in the NT. I know from the Greek translation of the OT as well as the original Greek text of the NT that homoerotic acts are condemned in no uncertain terms in both. You “cite” the Hebrew but even though I have not studied Hebrew I know very well that you are speaking out of your arse.
As for Boswell, it does not matter where he was educated. His errors are dissected in detail by David Wright. Boswell may have been a decent Medieval scholar (except where he veered into gay apologia) but his assertions regarding the word arsenokoitai, for example, are fallacious.
Milesius
Moron Cassandra, relying on wikipedia (because he/she cannot be bothered to look at anything else), claims Dawkins has published research as recently as 2004. Let’s take a look at the list of citations:
2000s
* Dawkins, R. (2000). “W. D. Hamilton memorial”. Nature 405 (6788): 733.
* Dawkins, R. (2002). “Should doctors be Darwinian?”. Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
* Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). “Is a scientific boycott ever justified?”. Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
* Dawkins, R. (2003). “The evolution of evolvability”. On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
* Dawkins, R. (2004). “Viruses of the mind”. in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.
* Dawkins, R. (June 2004). “Extended phenotype – But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka”. Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.
Anything resembling original research there? No. Any data collected to test scientific hypotheses? No. Publishing opinion pieces, even in Nature, does not count as research output. Your inability to apprehend this is not my problem.
Quit while you are behind.
Marty
You know you’re struggling when you cite from Wikipedia….
I’m just sayin’…..
Milesius
@Adman: Queer Theory is a bs discipline that attracts people who lack the native intelligence to cut it in real academic disciplines. It should be renamed Queer Assertions or Queer Yarns or Queer Making **** Up, right before it is ejected out of academia completely.
Really, you’d be better off advocating the Theory of the Four Humors.
Does Queerty have an intelligence cap? If so, I apologize for violating it to such an extreme. My mere presence here has obviously raised the mean intelligence by several standard deviations.
Milesius
“David Wright was not a philologist. He was a distinguished evangelical church historian and theologian. http://news.scotsman.com/obitu…..3805020.jp
His career was focused on promoting conservative theology and his expertise was not in linguistics, but theology. Boswell’s argument is in part a philological one.”
Dear Dumb Ass,
David Wright was a NT scholar, a Patristics scholar, and an expert concerning Ancient Greek. Once again you have demonstrated that there is no bottom to dumb.
“You though, are neither a philologist or a theologian, and seem to have difficulty with basic math (55 greater than 3, 2004 comes after 1990).”
I never claimed 3 is greater than 55, nor did I claim that the year 2004 preceded 1990. You are both stupid and a liar. (It appears that your sole purpose in life is depleting oxygen, like Harvey Milk.)
Suzygoo
To all those who say that Mr.Eduardo Verástegui is hot thus they would “hit that”-he may boink you but he will not walk down the aisle with you. He should have put a ring on Ricky!
adman
@Milesius: This from a guy with a few degrees from a bible college…tell us more doctor, so far you’ve cited a bunch of loons, whom you most closely resemble. Admit homophobia is a bigoted notion, an invention of the psychopathological reaching of a bunch of desert nomads and just admit you’re superstition. Sky daddy might hurt you if you give into your urge to suck dick. You sound like William Lane Craig on meth.
Cassandra
Milesius
“Dear Moron (Cassandra):
I am not interested in your internet citations.”
So, more abusive and completely unprofessional behavior, coupled with the completely unscientific stance of summarily dismissing any evidence other than his/her own.
“I am aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (except for a portion written in Aramaic). Apparently, you are not aware that it was translated into Greek and that version of the OT (i.e., the Septuagint) is the one quoted in the NT.”
Followed by a fantasy about what I do, or do not know, that 1) has not basis in reality, and 2) cannot be logically derived from any material I have presented.
Of course, it is all bluster. After all, when I wrote about Leviticus, I was not addressing anything ‘quoted in the NT’. So you offer up a smokescreen argument over the validity of Septuagint vs. the Masoretic text, and which is authoritative over the other. All of this bluster from you is presented as a substitute for any substantive argument.
“You “cite” the Hebrew but even though I have not studied Hebrew I know very well that you are speaking out of your arse.”
More profanity and more fantasy, and still, not a single substantive, reality based assertion to challenge, much less refute any point I’ve made – nothing but one ad hominem attack on me after another.
I doubt that this is how real mathematicians function in any worthy academic setting.
“As for Boswell, it does not matter where he was educated. His errors are dissected in detail by David Wright. Boswell may have been a decent Medieval scholar (except where he veered into gay apologia) but his assertions regarding the word arsenokoitai, for example, are fallacious.”
Ah, the double standard dismissal. Milesius, you assert that your education trumps everyone else’s knowledge, study or training, so much so that you don’t even need to substantiate your claims, yet for Boswell “it does not matter where he was educated”. You’ve just denounced your own claim to authority as well, for it no longer matters where you’ve been educated, or what you’ve been educated in.
And summarily dismissing Boswell’s work by labeling them ‘fallacious’ is itself fallacy. Your own posts have been heavily burdened by fallacy, not the least of which is personal attack and appeal to authority.
David Wright approached the texts from the perspective of a conservative theology, Boswell from the perspective of someone trained in language itself.
It has been suggested to you several times now that you present the allegedly discrediting arguments of the Mr. Wright, and you continue to fail to do so. This creates the impression that you are aware of the flaws in Wright’s claims and are unable to defend them.
“Moron Cassandra,”
More name calling, indicating an absence of any substantive argument to go with the absence of any evidence or data.
“relying on wikipedia”
Outright dismissal of a source is another fallacy.
“(because he/she cannot be bothered to look at anything else),”
It amuses me when someone who claims a science background (like mathematics) presents him or herself as a mind reader. I chose wikipedia because its material is presented in a straight-forward way well within the reading skills of most people. Of course, the bluster is just another round of noise to cover the fact that you haven’t provided any substantiation for your claims. You provide nothing, but dismiss everything anyone provides. That is not the behavior of a serious scholar, Milesius.
The list of citations you quoted includes a 2004 dated work, you may not like the work, you may not agree with it, but its existence indicates that your prior claim regarding Dawkins not publishing since 1990, is false. Thatcher’s term ended in 1990, Dawkins published the following in the immediately subsequent decade:
“# Dawkins, R. (1990). “Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism”. Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.
# Dawkins, R. (June 1991). “Evolution of the Mind”. Nature 351 (6329): 686.
# Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). “Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube”. Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.
# Dawkins, R. (1994). “Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling”. Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
# Dawkins, R. (September 1995). “The Evolved Imagination”. Natural History 104 (9): 8.
# Dawkins, R. (December 1994). “Burying The Vehicle” ([dead link]). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994burying_the_vehicle.shtml.
# Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). “Religion and Science”. BioEssays 19 (8): 743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
# Dawkins, R. (1997). “The Pope’s message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
# Dawkins, R. (1998). “Intellectual Imposters”. Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.
# Dawkins, R. (1998). “Arresting evidence”. Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.”
You give us no reason to conclude that any of the above listed journals are inferior.
“Dear Dumb Ass,”
More name calling, which only indicates a complete lack of substantive data, as well as a complete lack of manners or “Christian virtue”. This is an appropriate place to remind of you something Jesus did say, something I’ve already posted once for you in reference to your verbal abuse:
Matthew 5: 21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. ”
“I never claimed 3 is greater than 55, nor did I claim that the year 2004 preceded 1990. You are both stupid and a liar.”
Setting aside the obvious sin in your statement above, you did assert, through a combination of implied and explicit statements that Dawkins’ 55 published works was of little value, while your own 3 co-authored (alleged, not verified) in a completely different field, made you an authority on the Bible. And you asserted that Dawkins’ had not published since Thatcher left office in 1990, yet he has published in academic journals as recently as 2004. For your statement to be correct, 2004 has to predate 1990. Either you did not research Mr. Dawkins’ history – something easy to do, or you were trying to mislead people with false information in order to discredit someone without doing any real, substantive work.
Just my opinion, but there seems to be a tremendous laziness in your work here. You don’t cite sources, dismiss any source that challenges your assertions, resort to name-calling and abusive behavior as a substitute for reason and logic.
Maybe I have too high a respect for scholars, but your posts here give the impression that your self-description is all fantasy. If you want people to believe that you are a scholar, in any field, you should start acting like one.
Cassandra
“You know you’re struggling when you cite from Wikipedia…”
People who don’t know any better know that.
If you have links to other sources that disprove any of the material from wikipedia that I have provided, by all means, post those links. Contribute something meaningful.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
A new salvo has been fired in the perennial war over Wikipedia’s accuracy. Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
Of course, the dismissal of wikipedia from Milisius comes someone who has presented no external citations or sources, only vague ‘so and so did x’ type claims. While Encyclopedia Britannica online is a pay site, and as such, may not be accessible to everyone reading.
Using such a source creates an impression of having something to hide – that the person making the citation is hoping others will not pay to join EB and double-check his/her quotes and uses of its material.
In the interest of transparency, I personally try to use sources that are openly available to anyone who wants to research further.
Marc
@JonathanHasHasIt: Do gays really have the the moral obligation to out homophobic gays they know?
Cassandra
“Marc
@JonathanHasHasIt: Do gays really have the the moral obligation to out homophobic gays they know?”
How about reframing it? Do people who know that someone is harming others have a moral obligation to stop the harm somehow?
I’d say yes. As it applies to Ricky, does it have to be in the form of outing his ex? Maybe not.
It occurred to me that this situation may be the undisclosed issue that lead Mr. Martin to come out – and he may have reasonably guessed that when he did, there would be inquiries into the political activities of the men linked to him.
Simply outing his ex publicly might have been interpreted as revenge, but, coming out himself and allowing others to put the pieces together . . .
Ogre Magi
Milesius, what is your field of expertise?
Ogre Magi
Milesius, I will agree with you that that Halsall fellow is a piece of shit! I used to work at the gay bar he was arrested at.
Superman
@beto: Eduardo is NOT–and have never been–married.
Superman
@Superman: Sigh. Sorry for the typo. “…HAS never been married.”
newborn
you go cassandra! knowledge versus inability.
TOMER
definitely a bottom
ossurworld
Will the real boyfriend of Ricky Martin please stand up?
JonathanHasHasIt
@Marc: I think you answered your own question Marc. Key word: homophobic. Understand?
JonathanHasHasIt
@Cassandra: Well said Cassandra. There’s nothing to out about Verastegui because he has never been seen with a woman, yet he’s always lived with men. Sad that Ricky Martin, who uses Twitter to announce he’s going to the bathroom, can’t comment on this very hurtful and embarrassing situation.
scott ny'er
@JonathanHasHasIt: Would you comment on your personal life to all the world? I know I wouldn’t.
Marc
@JonathanHasHasIt: Yes, I do understand, but if Eduardo was Ricky’s friend and lover then you can’t expect Ricky to just casually out him.
Wade MacMorrighan
@Cassandar: “Your reliance on name-calling and other forms of personal attack have the effect of invalidating your claims.”
I know! You’d think that someone allegedly well-educated such as he would know what “ad hominem” is and how it automatically invalidates one’s argument! But, then again, maybe his bible college didn’t think they needed to study critical thinking skills and Logical Fallacies, the way that mainstream historians are required to? Here’s a great academic resource on LFs: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Moreover, the vast majority of established professional historians are making rather stringent demands with the Editors for academic publishing houses, demanding that they cease publishing ANY works fills with LFs.
“Boswell’s work has not been discredited. A few minor league homophobes who make their living promoting discrimination against GLBTQ people have raised objections to one minor point, others have ‘refuted’ strawman arguments of their own creation that have no honest relationship to Boswell’s arguments.”
Heck, what few people acknowledge (least of all, his detractors) is that Boswell *obsessively* cited his sources, making his texts to be some seriously DENSE and VERBOSE reading!
“More important though, is that you did not even attempt to refute Boswell’s claims, heck, you didn’t even paraphrase them accurately. Your characterization “the Romans did it!” creates the strong impression that either you did not read either of Boswell’s texts on the subject, or that you are simply telling lies. Or both.”
Heck, and I wasn’t even relying on Boswell when discussing the Romans. He also engages in another LF, here, by alleging that limited evidence dictates an impossibly low number on which to draw of hinge a case-study. However, what it *actually* informs us is that, if two (especially prominent) examples can be found, than we should expect that it is FAR more wide-spread!
It’s especially horrendous that he asked for evidence, with citations, and then refused on principal to even acknowledge that factual and documented evidence!
“Your quote from Matthew 19:4-5 is a case of fraud, by the way, fraud through selectivity. The passage you point people to is a response to a tightly defined question, and to apply that to a broader perspective is dishonest at the very least.”
This is *another* LF, which I frequently despise in works of academia, called “Observational Selectivity”!
Wade MacMorrighan
@Cassandar: “There seems to be a huge glut of ego involved in your responses.”
Actually, he seems to loathe and seems evidently hostile to all non-Christian cultures! How can samples of evidence for marriage between two men or two women be “irrelevant” because it comes from a powerful tribal culture is offensive!
“Of course, alleged expertise in mathematics makes you infallible in other subjects as well.”
Exactly! Mathematical sciences does NOT qualify him to speak on history *nor* Anthropology! And, as for me having had nothing published–I HAVE! Please tell him that it was a near 30-page study in which I was able to document and trace the Indo-European hearth-goddess motif back to its circumpolar/ shamanic antecedents, thus proving certain variants of the Gimbutas kurgan hypothesis! It was published 13 months ago.
“Just because you state something doesn’t mean it is accurate. Frankly, your use of personal attack and blanket dismissals create the impression that every thing state is a lie, based on the fact that your guesses about the character and motives of other people are predominantly derived from your own knowledge of your own character.”
There is another known LF, there, known as “sweeping generalizations” that he is engaging in. ;o)
Wade MacMorrighan
@adman: “American culture fast becoming one of these ‘backwater’ cultures due to the mendacious posturing of hetero-sexist leaning scholars like yourself. Go back to your apologetics courses and leave the civilized discussion for others more suited to the task.”
EXACTLY! His whole position is one based solely on Special Pleading (another LF)! In fact, he also seems to believe in “American superiority”, or the myth of “American exceptionalism” where we like to tout ourselves as “leaders of the world” and far more “progressive” and “enlightened”. Only thing is? When it comes to social progress, we are lagging far behind the Western world!
Oh, and if he’s reading this, I have *never* actually co-authored MY article! :oP Indeed, it was based off of original findings that no other scholar has come to the conclusions that I have found, which was surprising to me!
Wade MacMorrighan
@Cassandar: Dayum, he’s been served! ;o) Incidentally, it’s also worth noting that Boswell himself was also a Christian with a ministry if I recall correctly. Indeed, it seems that he is of the mind of only citing severe Evangelicals y contrast to mainstream scholars and historians whom he dejects as so-called “apologists”, when the only Apologist is himself!
anniika
@Wade MacMorrighan: Do you really think it promotes egalitarianism to celebrate the fact that throughout history, the elite upperclasses have been men, many of whom lived in societies where sexual and emotional relationships with other men were privileged above all others? Athens had 250,000 inhabitants, 25,000 of whom were citizens. Guess who the 90% of non-citizens were — women of all ages, slaves of both genders, immigrants and anyone whose father was not a citizen. While the beauty, nobility and intellect of aristocratic young men were celebrated, the sole purpose of upperclass women was to be at home, barefoot and pregnant. Women weren’t allowed to leave their houses, let alone speak in public. As you move down the class structure, coercion, physical brutality, even death become acceptable ways of constraining non-citizens. It makes sense to me to take pride in the long and inspiring history of male-male love, but I also think it’s dangerous to romanticize this history as one free of social and political oppression.
stoph8now
@JonathanHasHasIt:
ricky does not have a moral obligation to comment on his relationship with e.v. or anyone else for that matter. why would you even say that?
i’ve had enough of e.v. already. don’t get me wrong he has a right to his opinions, even if they do not reflect my own. what i’ve had enough of is this: leave ricky’s children out of this! children should be off limits to tabloid fodder. say whatever about ricky, it goes with celeb territory. just leave the kids out of it.
Wade MacMorrighan
@Cassandra: Cassandra, if you “love” this guy, I have a feeling that you will “love” the work of Profs. Ronald Hutton and Norman Cohn, too! :oP (Ugh…scholars that pull this crap over and over again really piss me off!)
“David Wright approached the texts from the perspective of a conservative theology, Boswell from the perspective of someone trained in language itself.”
Not to mention the FACT that Boswell comes to his work as a strictly trained academic Historian, indeed, the head Prof. of History at Yale Univ.!
Wright, on the contrary, has only written about Boswell in dismissive terms, failing to grasp the deeper academic evidence disclosed by Boswell, and only choosing to take cheap pot-shots, Indeed, Wright’s alleged “discrediting” of Boswell chiefly amount to sweeping generalizations. But, as far as Wright’s objectivity, we have this statement from the author of the People With a History Page, who knew him:
“David Wright, a former professor of mine at the University of Edinburgh, with real scholarly skills. But he is also conservative evangelical, and >>>an elder in one of the most theologically conservative congregations in Edinburgh<<>>He began by making overtly homophobic jokes<<< about Boswell's use of the word "gay". This may have represented Edinburgh provincialism (homosexuality only having become legal there in 1979) , but it was excruciating to sit through."
Wright hardly seems like a reputable source! Indeed, most of his articles seem to be published in Christian journals and encyclopedias, rather than un-biased journals of historical studies.
Indeed, according to a review Wright wrote (say that 5 times fast!), he is eventually humbled before Boswell: "Wright also takes issue with Boswell's claim in SSU that the general argument of CSTH "has met with little opposition over the intervening decade". But Boswell may well have been quite justified in this claim: the many attacks on CSTH tended to focus on specific issues, not on the general program of recovering a "gay" history, not Boswell's essentially uncontested argument that virulent and widespread ecclesiastical attacks on homosexual activity really only unroll in the later middle ages. With SSU, Wright cannot bring himself to deny that Boswell has found something of interest – he gives the Scottish judicial verdict of "not proven" on the book, and notes that it displays "flashing insight" and "extraordinary skills and industry"."
And, incidentally, Paul Halsall notes that nearly all of Boswell's critics are evangelicals, or writing for or recommending low-brow Christian rags! http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrevdisc-kennedy1.html
"Maybe I have too high a respect for scholars…<<<
Agreed! Though, I must admit, I have found that I seem to think more highly of scholars than they appear to think of themselves, otherwise, they would not engage in a Christian Apologetic polemics that they do, in light of both the counter evidence, and a counter academic consensus (chiefly from the Continent of Europe!). But, this field is mainly in medieval Witchcraft Studies as a survival of Paganism!
Wade MacMorrighan
@Cassandra: “Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.”
Interesting note about Britannica, which comes from my own article both reviewing and critiquing the collection of essays on Witchcraft Studies edited by Prof. Kathryne A. Edward’s: Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief & Folklore in Early-Modern Europe. Sixteenth-Century Essays & Studies, Vol. 62. (Truman State University Press, 2002).
“When I first became aware of this book, I grew increasingly concerned that it might bear an over-riding agenda, due to the glowing reviews bestowed upon it by numerous Catholic Journals excerpted upon the Truman State University web-site;[1] a fear that is well-founded when considering the fact that it has been proven that the Catholic Church has had a hand in editing the Encyclopedia Britannica (among other academic works of reference) in an effort to mitigate their culpability during the Inquisition and suppression of paganism, as well as redacting several further works that were thought to present a “counter-Christian” thesis. For more on this, please consult the following resources by an important early twentieth-century atheist scholar, Joseph McCabe: “Lies & Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica: How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference”;[2] “The Columbia Encyclopedia’s Crimes Against the Truth: How a Popular Reference Work is being used as a Weapon Against Free Culture and Twisted to fit the Purposes of Lying Obscurantists”;[3] and “Rome’s Syllabus of Condemned Opinion: The Last Blast of the Catholic Church’s Medieval Trumpet”.[4]
“Joseph McCabe found that the Catholic Church was actively lobbying for, and succeeding in changing encyclopedia entries to either reduce or omit any information controversial to Catholic doctrine (eg. Dying-and-Rising deities); in some cases with out-and-out censorship or even deceptive material; though, in most cases they employed a specious “softening” approach. It is believed that these mendacious tactics are still quite extensive in many contemporary reference works, and that they are continuing to go on unchecked, and unwatched!
“Thankfully, however, I can rest assured that my initial fears noted for this particular review were unwarranted. …” [pp. 1].
FOOTNOTES:
[1] http://tsup.truman.edu/
[2] http://www.reformation.org/lies-of-encyclopeida-britannica.html
[3] http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/encyclopedia_crime.html
[4] http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/condemned_opinions.html
“In the interest of transparency, I personally try to use sources that are openly available to anyone who wants to research further.”
And, I commend you for this! Several scholars I have witnessed over the years (one a head of History at Bristol Univ.) tries to hide behind hard-to-find evidence and even pulls WHOPPING LFs; while another (now deceased) made his reputation by lying about Margaret Murray in an effort to portray her as a fraud, and as duplicitous, by claiming that she had knowingly omitted textual documentation that would have discredited her when, of the texts that he cited (claiming she had omitted them) Murray considered their opposing insights VERY carefully! But, that doesn’t matter to most historians, who know accept Cohn’s criticisms as “standard”. And, anyone who criticisms him is seem as a supporter of Murray (bathwater, baby, and all!) and reviled (mocked, actually) as a “Murrayite”! Some scholars (such as that fellow from Bristol) fail to acknowledge this, claim it’s somehow “unimportant”, and even fail to censure Cohn for his sexist and ageist statements made against Murray as a reason for discrediting her…
alan brickman
still very cute…want him even more…what a challenge….
jeffree
@Cassandra: Thanks, as always for your clear logic, factual data and links 2 sources. Your ability to engage in a constructive debate here is much admired.
nikko
ANNIIKA, excellent comment.
SSCHIEFRSHA
@anniika: Brava! Well said. You are a brilliant chick-if you are indeed a woman. That is sexy. You just gave me an intellectual orgasm! I want to fuck your brain! The Gods! Does that make me a “Questioning Youth”?
JonathanHasHasIt
@alan brickman: You, sir, are a moron.
JonathanHasHasIt
@stoph8now: It´s because of people like you and your attitude that we got Prop. 8. Disgusting.
JonathanHasHasIt
@Marc: You are so not understanding anything. Hopeless case.
mymarie
I can’t believe the hateful rhetoric being spewed in these comments. A little tolerance for others goes a long way to get others to listen to your point of view. Eduardo Verastegui personal life is none of my business. All I know is he his doing great work, he believes the unborn have rights and he is openly vocal about his point of view. As far as his involvement with Ricky Martin, that was decades ago. He admits to having some regrets about his past and that he has embraced his religious beliefs and is more devout. Not unlike Ricky Martin, Eduardo has decided to take a different path then the one he traveled in his youth. We should be tolerant of both these men, these decisions cannot be easy to make.
Shaz
Don’t be hating cause he’s Hot & not into the “men on men trend” he’s a straight worshiper of God! and Thank God for that! It’s about time there are hot men that AREN’T GAY! lol…
Yasmine
Hey!!! IF U wanta get married go to Mexico!!! It’s legal there.
paul treitas
you are so hateful, just because one doesn’t agree with your point of views you desire evil things for others. you who preach against hate you yourself hate others. is that being gay? or so happy hateful men of lust.
Bryan
Eduardo Verastegui is nothing more than a disgusting rotten sack of tattered TRASH! He is a pathetic excuse and an embrassment as a man, as a latino and a Mexican. And on thing I don’t respect is a hypocrite or ridiculous people, and in this case…he has worst of both worlds, and lord knows we have enough smut, slime and pollution in this world and he is just another garbage back on the street that is ready to be put in his place. I was absolutely appauled by his comments about Ricky Martin’s sexual orientation unveiling and supporting the law to ban same-sex marriages…in which being a homosexual, a bisexual, trisexual or a whatever is not a mistake. The only mistake is allowing bottom feeding ‘pobre muerte de hambre’ pigs like Eduardo to have a voice in the community and spread this abomination, this pervsion anymore. I don’t have much to say about him, and nor do I think highly of him. So all I will say is I’ll be laughing at him when he rots in his own filth.
froufrou
you’re all a bunch of frou frou fag nasties! blech!!
altas
To Bryan: Now this comment is about two year too late but the matter of fact is: Eduardo Verastequi is a man of God. Yes, he made a mistake of thinking he was gay, he tested it and saw that it was wrong – thank the dear Lord that he saw the right way to go. It just goes to show, gays ARE NOT BORN that way, no matter what anybody says, it is a choice in life you make, and that is the freewill God gave to men to see what they will do with it. Giving free will to men meant we should go out and live His will. As you can see, the world is going down the drains because of the freewill that is being abused in this world.
Why do you not rather applaud him for the good he is doing, and the change he was willing to make to ensure that this world becomes a better place?
Have you, after posting your hatred comment about Eduardo ever stop for a minute and ask yourself – Now what did I do today that is good? No, you did not, you decided to degrade a man who stands up for what he believes in and no man is without sin, but he realized he was wrong and made it right. Did you do the right thing? Just think of how many people are wishing bad things on you at this moment. It is sad, really.
To Eduardo:
Eduardo, if you ever read this, I have been following you closely for quite a time now, reading all about you – you are a fine man, keep doing what you do. If only there were more men like you, with the pure heart and soul you have, this world will be a much much better place.
bill forsyth
This theological debate whilst entertaining is rather like two bald men arguing over a comb whether it was written in Hebrew Greek Aramaic or Clingon is irrelevant, it is a fairy story or rather a collection of fables cobbled together by misogynistic homophobic old men and written in the pre scientific age when they solemnly believed the world was flat and demons stalked the land ,one might as well believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy all very harmless until one basis the law of the land on it.
TracyDom
@altas:
Do you call promoting intolerance and inequality “doing good”? That’s what this man is essentially doing with his work as an “activist.” What Verastegui experienced in his personal life is none of our business, and frankly nobody cares at this point; but what he does publicly hurts an entire community, and may very well make life more difficult for people with doubt or fears about their sexuality, particularly for those who happen to be in the Hispanic community.
Instead of casting ad hominem attacks on posters on this board, maybe you should try taking on their arguments for once, that is, if we assume you are equipped with the mental capacity to do so.
Carlos robles
Eduardo Verastegui was made a star by the monopolistic Televisa, Mexico’s national tv station. He is not famous outside of Mexico. His boy band would lip sync during most of their shows. He was known for dating the governor of his birthplace. He dated Luis Miguel’s wife when they starred in the soap opera Sonadoras. Aracely Arambula told a reporter Eduardo dumped her for Ricky Martin. Yes he is gay. He’s single and he’s Mexican. He thinks he can act and sing but down in Mexico we know that he was made a star by all the sugar daddies he slept with since leaving his sleepy town back in Tamaulipas.