Okee doke. Show of hands....how many think Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania is gay and a member of a brotherment?
1 posted on
08/27/2007 1:22:57 PM PDT by
Hi Heels
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
To: Hi Heels
Shouldn’t this be a BARF!!! alert?
Meadow Muffin
2 posted on
08/27/2007 1:24:25 PM PDT by
rwgal
To: Hi Heels
Where’s the “I smell BS” graphic?
3 posted on
08/27/2007 1:24:53 PM PDT by
Pyro7480
("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
To: Hi Heels
I have to chuckle when Longshanks gives his son’s boyfriend the heave-ho in Brave Heart. Guess Edward I didn’t endorse Same Sex Unions.
4 posted on
08/27/2007 1:25:21 PM PDT by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: Hi Heels
People was so stupid back then.
5 posted on
08/27/2007 1:25:51 PM PDT by
bmwcyle
(BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
To: Hi Heels
A considerably more logical explanation is that, in a society structured by kin-groups, those without relatives did what they could to invent artificial kindred.
6 posted on
08/27/2007 1:25:59 PM PDT by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Hi Heels
In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse...."Among other things ...
7 posted on
08/27/2007 1:26:06 PM PDT by
catpuppy
To: Hi Heels
A little internet research shows that (via the Amazon profile for Allan A. Tulchin, PhD that teaches at Shippensburg University)
COUPLE: Allan Tulchin and Judy Miller
WEDDING DATE: 1/14/2007
SHIPPING ADDRESS: Judy Miller & Allan Tulchin - Takoma Park, MD
8 posted on
08/27/2007 1:26:08 PM PDT by
Lazamataz
To: Hi Heels
Makes the phrase “I’m about to get medieval on your *$$” take on a whole new meaning.
10 posted on
08/27/2007 1:28:04 PM PDT by
VRWCmember
(Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
To: Hi Heels
"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way . . . "In other words, there is not a shred of evidence for his claims whatsoever.
11 posted on
08/27/2007 1:28:08 PM PDT by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: Hi Heels
1) Nothing says they were homosexual relationships.
2) It’s still not marriage, which is what the homo lobby wants.
To: Hi Heels
Wasn’t it known as the Dark Ages?,
13 posted on
08/27/2007 1:28:38 PM PDT by
Rodm
(Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings)
To: Hi Heels
I do think it is worth noting that the stated purpose of an affrèrement was OTHER than to allow "same sex marriage". That it may have been abused in such a way should come as no surprise, since other perfectly legitimate enterprises are similarly abused.
This actually gets to the heart of the bias shown in allowing 'domestic partnerships' only for same-sex pairs who have sex with each other. Why can't platonic friends form such a partnership? Apparently, folks in the Middle Ages would have agreed.
To: Hi Heels
Okee doke. Show of hands....how many think Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania is gay
16 posted on
08/27/2007 1:31:05 PM PDT by
SIDENET
(More fun than a beer left in the freezer.)
To: Hi Heels
"a historian now says."
Riiiiiiight.
These "historians" are always "discovering" things out of whole cloth.
In the future, we'll all be dead and homosexual.
17 posted on
08/27/2007 1:33:36 PM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: Hi Heels
Homosexual couples were often tied to the same stake before being burned.
20 posted on
08/27/2007 1:36:25 PM PDT by
Macrinus
To: Hi Heels
This is sort of like leftists pointing at the current webster’s definition of marriage (”two PEOPLE”) and claiming that as “proof” that marriage isn’t defined as one man one woman.
However, they don’t want to, even if they know it to be the case, acknowledge that this definition has only recently been modified. I believe within the last 5-7 years.
21 posted on
08/27/2007 1:37:11 PM PDT by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: Hi Heels
No wonder the pilgrams got out of there.
22 posted on
08/27/2007 1:37:50 PM PDT by
lakeman
To: Hi Heels
Wow! This is as startling as the revelation that guns were very rare in colonial America!
(rolling eyes)
I wonder if Tulchin will gain the same accolades and awards as Bellesiles.
To: Hi Heels
“... can be interpreted as supporting... tricky at best to figure out... I suspect that ... impossible to prove either way ...”
What a load of BS.
To: Hi Heels
The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out. Er...uh.... Nope, just going to leave that one alone.
28 posted on
08/27/2007 1:42:07 PM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson