From your first citation:
Boswell was not able to show that any high church body gave approval to such a use of the rite, but was able to show, as most critics allow, that the rite was both fairly widespread [he had about 70 manuscripts], and that it probably was used by some same-sex couples to give some outward sign to their relationship.
The late 18th century Orthodox law text known as the Pedalion or Rudder does indicate that the ceremony was [ab]used in this way. From a much earlier date, St. Theodore of Studium in his Reform Rules seems to relate the ceremony to marriage. (A note here, the [ab] in the above quote is not attributed and thus we don't know if it was added by the original author or was more recently inserted.)
[I should note that I had made this observation, in an unpublished paper, some time ago. Alice Mary Talbot of Dumbarton Oaks strongly doubted that interpretation, but it is supported in the forthcoming translation and commentary on the Life by Angeliki Laiou, also of Dumbarton Oaks.
These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other."
From your second citation:
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ. By Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
I've read Boswell's work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, and while the pro-homosexual bias is obvious, it is still impossible to simply dismiss his work out of hand. Regarding the article you posted, I think it distorts things terribly, as it makes Christian history sound like modern day San Francisco during a gay pride march. If there were indeed pockets of acceptance of homosexuality, they were by far the exception to the rule. As to how much of what Boswell says is accurate, I don't know.
What I can tell you is that I found his exegesis of the relevant Scriptural passages to be interesting, though not wholly convincing. I don't really know enough about the medieval history aspects of his work to even venture a guess. For myself, the more important lesson of his book is that tradition isn't always what you assume that it is, and that we need to learn to not think of history as a black and white thing, as though all the subtlety, diversity and profound complexity of human beings and human society exist only in those alive today. by Asteriktos
What intrigued me was that this last citation goes on to quote a bunch of people who universally debunked Boswell's work, but only in two or three sentence paragraphs and they gave no sources--but claimed that there WERE sources.
Just as with many Christian points of dogma it appears that there is much argument about what is really true, and as many Christians have pointed out to me, that not all Christians can be judged by the actions of others--which means that nobody knows with certainty.
This was a good post, Who, but seems like a lot of work to do just so that you can use this flimsy discussion to continue denying gay people legal marriage. There is no LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF in denying rights to others what you enjoy for your own.
