MadelynIris said:
I mean what it is... Melon will argue that it was considered a psychosis, but I hardly think the greeks and romans thought that.
There were established relationships between the same sexes. I just don't get what is so hard to believe about that.
I was reading this thread while at work, and since I think it sets a bad precedent to post things from work, I found myself sitting there thinking of all the misconceptions I was going to have to clear up as time went on...heh.
First off, this article doesn't change anything...because what this article offers is nothing new at all. The late American historian, John Boswell, wrote a book called "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (1994), arguing that the existence of such unions--which occurred in both the West and Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire--meant tacit acceptance of same-sex unions....
...Well, the thing is, even Boswell mentions that these rites were of a "spiritual," not "carnal" nature. The rite in the Greek Orthodox Church,
adelphopoiesis, literally means "brother-making." And what do we have here?
Affrèrement, meaning "brotherment," which implies that they are similar rites. The Greek Orthodox Church, in particular, took great issue with Boswell's research, claiming that the rite was one of "familial adoption," not what we, in modern times, would define a "same sex union."
Logically speaking, the Greek Orthodox Church is probably correct. Same-sex relations, prior to Sigmund Freud, are filled with what you'd call "Victorian naïveté." That is, there is distinct evidence of men forming very close friendships that are filled with intellectual and emotional passion, but no evidence of such relationships extending beyond that, for the most part. This is most comparable, perhaps, to how women today can have friendships that are very close and emotionally intimate, and most people would never think of close female friends as being "lesbians."
And, indeed,
adelphopoiesis-style ceremonies still exist today, as they have been observed in some Orthodox Christian communities in the Levant. As observed even today, these ceremonies are performed strictly with the intent of "friendship."
As I have maintained from the beginning, what we define as "modern homosexuality" did not truly exist in any form before the 19th century, with the advent of psychology. That "Victorian naïveté" that I mentioned before regarding male friendships? Well, that died a quick death with the advent of Sigmund Freud, who labeled such friendships as being "homosexual," which quickly put an end to them. Like we see today even, most heterosexual men do not bond with other men beyond superficial chatter, even if they do happen to enjoy their company greatly.
The status of homosexuality being a "psychosis" was not, as you incorrectly paraphrased me as saying, a belief that Greco-Roman society maintained; that was, again, a direct result of 19th century Freudian psychology. In the Greco-Roman era--and as observed in some African and Pacific Islander tribes even today--"modern homosexuality" did not apply. It was most strictly in the form of "pederasty," which meant an older married man with a younger, teenage man. Such a relationship was likely similar to an "apprenticeship," where the younger man was supposed to be "instructed" on the ways of being a good lover and future husband. Was it sexual? Most definitely, and such practices and justifications have been also observed in those aforementioned African and Pacific Islander tribes. Once the younger male reached "adulthood," the pederast relationship ceased, where the "apprentice" would then marry a woman and start a family. Of course, then he'd eventually get an "apprentice" of his own to "instruct."
What you need to take away from this was that Greco-Roman society had no concept of "sexual orientation," and, as such, if you must put a label on it, everyone was "heterosexual." Likewise, as St. Paul condemned the Greco-Roman sexual practices of temple prostitution orgies (
arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians, falsely translated as "homosexuality") and pederasty (
malakos in the same verse, falsely translated as "effeminate" or "boy prostitute"), he would have seen it in the exact same mindset: these are all heterosexuals. As such, these "heterosexuals" were consumed with both idolatrous (temple prostitution orgies ) and adulterous (pederasty) lust, which were, thus, "immoral."
With the Christianization of the Roman Empire by the 4th century A.D., all of these now-archaic sexual practices died a very quick death. All pagan temples were closed, with the accompanying temple prostitution outlawed. Likewise, pederastic relationships were also outlawed. Thus, from this point to the 19th century, all same-sex acts were viewed with the same lens: acts performed by heterosexuals.
At least in the first millennium A.D., however, the Pauline revulsion against pederasty and temple prostitution were interpreted narrowly, and there is ample evidence of "same-sex sex" occurring in monasteries and nunneries up to the 11th century. For reasons that are not altogether clear, this was seen as acceptable behavior. This all changed with St. Peter Damian's book,
Liber Gomorrhianus (1050), which was a scathing attack on what he saw as "clerical vices"--homosexual practices, mutual masturbation, copulation between the thighs, anal copulation and solitary masturbation, as subversive disruptions against the moral order occasioned by the madness associated with an excess of lust (he was also fiercely opposed to married clergy, which was banned very soon after this; the excuse about the ban on married priests as preventing church property from being passed down to their heirs is likely a lie to cover up this fact). As further evidence, this book was considered "scandalous" and was greatly criticized by then-Pope Leo IX.
Thus, due to St. Peter Damian's efforts, what started out as a narrow Pauline prohibition against pagan temple prostitution and pederasty became a wide prohibition against all same-sex acts. Again, with the mindset of everyone being "heterosexual" and with Christian scholarship during this time rediscovering Greek stoic philosophy from Islamic scholars in
Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain), this was a climate that proclaimed all emotions--happiness, sadness, arousal, etc.--to be "evil." Sex, as such, being perceived as such a strong and useless emotion, was seen as "especially evil." Thus, same-sex acts of any kind were seen as being nothing but acts of "lust."
On a different subject, when we think of the Middle Ages, we often think of a monolithic society dominated by a series of cookie-cutter monarchs and an overbearing Christian church dominating all aspects of medieval life. Much of that, however, would depend on the individual monarch and/or pope. For example, with the Spanish
Reconquista, as Christians took over former Muslim territories, that did not mean automatic expulsion of the Jews and Muslims who lived there. In fact, Spanish Christians understood the value of their arts, scholarship, and architecture, so many of them were left to continue their works to rebuild "Christian Spain." This is all in spite of the fact that, officially, both the Jews and Muslims were banned and hated by the Vatican.
Many European monarchs understood the mitigating circumstances of their populace, and, as such, would create laws and institutions to accommodate their needs and requests. This is likely the origin of the apparently secular "Affrèrement" ritual, which likely took note that "marriage," besides having a spiritual basis to it, also had legal protections to it. As such, what you see here is the equivalent of modern "domestic partnerships," where two men could form a binding legal contract to tie their affairs together. And obviously, there are many non-sexual reasons that you could want to create such an institution, such as dealing with the "non-nuclear households" that the original article describes. Knowing the attitudes of the Middle Ages after the 11th century A.D., that would have been all that it was intended to be--a legal institution. Since the Roman Catholic Church would have had supreme moral authority during this time, and there is no tradition of same-sex rites of any kind (unlike the Greek Orthodox Church), there is no evidence that this would have been anything beyond a legal institution.
Of course, when the Vatican wanted something gone, they got it. Although many Spanish monarchs were accepting of the Jews and Muslims in their kingdoms, with the arrival of the Crusades and the Ottoman destruction of the Christian Byzantine Empire, successive popes flat out ordered the expulsion of all Jews and Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity, and with the Spanish conquest of Granada in 1492, the Vatican's anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic dictates got full sway. Likewise, we're not told when or why this "Affrèrement" ritual ended, but it very possibly had to do with either a change in monarch, who was less secular and more religious, or a direct Vatican edict against it.
Fast forward back to the 19th century, as I have maintained before, "modern homosexuality" did not exist until then. It was during this time that "homosexuality," the word, was coined (1874, in Germany), and it was considered a great scandal to state that "homosexuals" could exist separate from "heterosexuals." Before this, any and all same-sex acts were long seen as the result of heterosexuals consciously choosing to rebel against God and nature.
With this change of status, however, "homosexuality" was now seen as a "disorder" that could be "cured." As such, from this time up to the early 1970s, we see all sorts of attempts to cure it, with bizarre "aversion therapy" practices of all kinds. By the 1970s, though, it became apparent through research that the view of it being a "psychosis" was wrong, and, as such, we have our modern understanding of homosexuality as part of nature. All credible research since then has only affirmed this status. As for those who still insist that homosexuality is evil, you'll notice that both of the past views on homosexuality are represented by them; religious organizations have merely meshed the idea that "it's a choice by heterosexuals" and "it's a psychosis" into one syncretic ideology. And, frankly, there's no way around it: they are grossly wrong.
Back to the article, my problems with these articles are that they are often "overeager" or are poorly paraphrased by the media eager to generate scandal, and, thus, more readers. Hopefully, from my long-winded essay here, though, you'll understand why the longer and more nuanced answer, however, makes the most sense.
As such, I shall repeat it again: "modern homosexuality," as understood today, did not exist in any form until at least the 19th century.
