[Ansteorra] Same-Sex Consorts

[Janice Dean Simpson]

I am not looking at the sexual preference part of the debate.
I am looking at a side that is a bit worrisome to me:
I know several powerhouse groups, in several kingdoms.  These groups do not always win Crown now because someone is either unable to find a consort, the consort (wife, girlfriend, etc) does not want to rule; or that fighter never really thought about it.  Let's say same sex consorts are allowed:
Then:
Bill fights for Gene who fights for Ray who fights for Tom who fights for Phil who fights for Kelly who fights for Bob who fights for Tim who fights for Mark who fights for Al who fights for Bill.
That is 10 fighters who are amazing fighters, and normally would not compete for whatever reason.  But now, to keep their group in power; they each chose one as a consort.  At the next Crown tournament, the same group (minus the ruling pair) do the same.
Not only does this link one powerhouse into the Throne for years to come, but wives, girlfriends and other significant others are unable to rule with their partners because the group decided it is better to win over and over than to honor the relationship.  

And, no; I do not think saying you can not fight for someone who is a consort will work, as many husband-wife pairs fight for each other.  Both are fighters.  You can not say that the consort must be in a relationship with the fighter:  because then you must define relationship.  If I am your friend, then we have a relationship.  If you are my team-mate:  we have a relationship.

Too much of a slippery slope to settle in one sitting.


________________________________
From: HerrDetlef <herrdetlef at gmail.com>
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Same-Sex Consorts

Ansgar,

What you are forgetting is that there IS a historical precedent (actually,
there are several) for two or more people of the same sex sharing a
kingship. It's not just a matter of fairness or anything like that. Nowhere
in mundane history has anybody said that the kingship must always be shared
between a man and a woman. For example, if the Prince of Wales were to
succeed his mother, he will probably not share the crown with his wife out
of respect for public opinion regarding his first wife. I don't necessarily
agree with that; the English language only has one word for the wife of a
king. But still, there is no law in mundane precedent requiring every king
to have a queen for the duration of his reign. That's artificial. It's also
artificial for the SCA to say that the king and queen need not be legally
married. What's NOT artificial is the existence of two or more kings
sharing a crown at the same time.

But nobody can say that same-sex consorts should not be allowed because it
isn't period and then say that same-sex consorts should not be allowed
because the documentation proving that it IS period is not the prime
motivation for petitioning the change in SCA practices.

I've been told that homosexuality should not be tolerated because it isn't
natural, and it isn't natural because it isn't observed among other
animals. When scientific evidence proved that homosexuality WAS observed
among other animals, the argument became that homosexuality shouldn't be
tolerated because human beings should not engage in behaviors that other
animals engage in. Changing the rules of the argument in mid-argument is
illogical at best, and it's often downright insulting. To be told that
having two kings on a throne is inappropriate because it isn't period, and
then to be told that having two kings on a throne is still inappropriate
when documentation is offered to demonstrate that it IS period because THAT
documentation is not the prime mover in the petition to allow same-sex
consorts in the SCA really boils my blood.

The only logical reason I've seen behind not allowing same-sex consorts on
a throne is the effects that that would have on a rapier community that
centers itself on the patronage of a queen. Everything else I've seen so
far has been a pathetic attempt to veil homophobia.

There. I said it.
Detlef

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, <bsmall at suddenlink.net> wrote:

> Detlef,
>
> I believe the point is that we are supposed to be studying and recreating
> the Middle Ages.  It's true that we aren't 100% authentic, but what a lot
> of people are pointing out is why deviate further from what we are already
> doing?
>
> In other words, how does adding same sex consorts (for convenience sake)
> take us away from our declared purpose?
>
> You could argue that we allow modern items at events and avail ourselves
> of modern medicine, etc., but those arguments really don't support going to
> same-sex consorts, in my opinion.
>
> Ansgar
>
> ---- HerrDetlef <herrdetlef at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So I take it you are also against discarding the concept of theocratic
> > kingship that pervaded the Middle Ages/Renaissance, and I also take it
> you
> > are against the concept of crowns stepping down after six months. These
> > things also do not accurately portray life as it was in the Middle Ages.
> I
> > don't know of a single medieval/Renaissance king who only ruled six
> months
> > and then willingly stepped down, and I don't know of a single medieval
> > coronation ceremony that was not actually performed by the Church. Kings
> > and queens in the Current Middle Ages do not rule/reign "by the grace of
> > God," and they are not anointed by bishops (the anointing being more
> > central to a coronation ceremony than the actual act of crowning). We
> > should bring the Church into the Current Middle Ages (if our kingdoms are
> > pagan and not Christian, from what gods do our kings claim descent?), and
> > we should allow our kings to reign for the rest of their lives and also
> > pass their kingdoms on to their own children.
> >
> > Do you REALLY want to go that route?
> >
> > Detlef
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
Hwæt! We Gardena         in geardagum,
þeodcyninga,         þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas         ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing         sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum,         meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.         Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden,         he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum,         weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc         þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade         hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan.         þæt wæs god cyning!
_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org