By SEAN MURPHY

Supporters of homosexual "marriage" sometimes claim that marriage has not always been defined as the exclusive union of one man and one woman for the procreation of children.

They cite two books by John Boswell: Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, and particularly, Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe, to "prove" that homosexual "marriages" were performed in Christian churches as late as the 17th and 18th centuries.

They then challenge those who reject the possibility of homosexual "marriage" to explain what harm could come from such a development, which, they say, is really nothing new after all.

The first book was described as "influential but highly misleading" by David Wright, author of the article on homosexuality in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Wright concluded that Boswell had found no evidence that homosexual activity was accepted by the early Church.

In Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe, Boswell reported his "discovery" of records of blessings bestowed on men who were becoming spiritual brothers (a rite called adelphopoiesis) and claimed that these were evidence that Christianity blessed homosexual activity with rituals for same-sex unions.

Boswell's "discovery" was not news to liturgical scholars. It was the creation of history in support of a cause, supported by mistranslation, editing out material unsupportive of his thesis, and omissions of other relevant materials. Reviewers careful enough to check his references found them helpful in uncovering his errors, but his meticulous footnotes actually created only a "facade of scholarship."

(A reviewer who described Boswell's effort as an embarrassing failure had more than scholarship to support her judgement. Nine years before Boswell's book was published, she and another woman received a liturgical blessing on their friendship from a Syrian Orthodox archbishop, but nothing in the rite suggested a blessing on homosexual activity or relationships.)

Boswell's "exhaustively researched" lapse in scholarship appears to have been an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilables in his personal life. Active in homosexual relations, Boswell also professed to be a practising Catholic. He died of an AIDS-related illness the year the book was published.

Now, how does one meet the challenge to show what harms might come from homosexual "marriage"?

A start can be made by referring to the work of Professor Katherine Young and researcher Paul Nathanson of McGill University. Social scientists who reject Catholic teaching on homosexual conduct (Nathanson identifies himself as a homosexual), they argue persuasively against homosexual "marriage."

Their historical and cross-cultural studies have led them to conclude that such a thing "has had not even one precedent as the norm of any society" and that "the marital norm for every society has always been heterosexual." Moreover, contrary to what Boswell has led many to believe, marriage "has always been intended primarily ... to serve the needs of children."

On the subject of potential harms, Young and Nathanson point out that the consequences of such a change cannot be certainly foreseen. However, working from tendencies already present in our society, they predict attacks on religious freedom, and suggest an eventual fragmentation of society will be caused by the weakening of bonds between the individual and the community, between parents and children, between nature and culture, and between men and women.

Their arguments were presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and are summarized in Marriage a-la-mode: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage, available on the Web site of the Catholic Educators' Resource Centre: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0064.html.

One more thing: Young and Nathanson remind us that the burden of proof lies on those who want the definition of marriage changed. That marriage is a special relationship that exists uniquely between men and women is an assertion that rests upon the experience and collective wisdom of human history and culture. If cultural revolutionaries want that changed, it is up to them to prove that the change won't be harmful. That has not been done, and John Boswell doesn't help them make their case.