Medieval Gays Got Unions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,519
Location
the West Coast
[q]Gay Civil Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 27 August 2007 08:50 am ET

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”[/q]



so, like, what's this again with the whole bucking of 5,000 years of tradition and destroying the family and how no society has ever done this and all that, you know, bigoted bunk?
 
They were all best friends. They weren't sexual because that's gross.
 
i fail to see what's so hard about all of this.

gay people exist. they've always existed. they exist in roughly the same numbers in every society in every country throughout the world and throughout history. Memphis and i watched a documentary last night about coming out in the 3rd world, and whether it's Pakistan or Malaysia or Namibia, nearly everyone's experience is almost exactly the same (despite different political circumstance). it's so obviously a normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality. what is so freaking hard about finding a place for gay people in society?
 
Irvine511 said:
what is so freaking hard about finding a place for gay people in society?

So, do gay people have no place in society in, for the sake of argument, a typical large cosmopolitan city in the North East of the USA?

Aren't you, to be blunt, somewhat exaggerating the level of homophobia which exists today, and rather understating the level which existed in previous societies?


Homophobia, 14 & 15th C. Florence:-


"In fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Florence — where men were fond of sodomy to such an extent that the Germans dubbed pederasts Florenzer and the German word for sodomy became florenzen — the laws were precise with a vengeance: pederasts were castrated; consenting boys under 14 were beaten, driven naked through the city, and fine 50 lire; youths between 14 and 18 were fined 100 lire; houses or fields where the act took place were laid waste; men found in suspicious circumstances were presumed guilty; torture could be used to elicit a confession; conviction resulted in burning at the stake."

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho5.htm


Homophobia, late 19th C. Britain:-

"The final trial was presided over by Mr. Justice [Sir Alfred] Wills. On May 25, 1895 Wilde was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years' hard labour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde#Trial.2C_imprisonment.2C_and_transfer_to_Reading_Gaol


Homophobia, early 21st C. USA:-

"In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States


Spot the trend?
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:


So, do gay people have no place in society in, for the sake of argument, a typical large cosmopolitan city in the North East of the USA?

Aren't you, to be blunt, somewhat exaggerating the level of homophobia which exists today, and rather understating the level which existed in previous societies?




gay relationships have no legal status in a majority of US states. things can vary city to city, town to town, but with the exception of Massachusetts, gay relationships are always inferior to straight relationships when they are even recognized, and often they are never recognized in any sort of legal sense at all.

where have i exaggerated the level of homophobia that exists today? if anything, the point i like to make is that those who are homophobic belong in a museum as they are increasingly in the minority, and because there's no coherent argument against gay marriage, it's a dying position. i'm quite optimistic about the future, because the kids are all right.

as for the historical examples -- i dunno. that's what i would have expected from Christian Europe, but what the article i've cited demonstrates is that the world back then was much more complexed and nuanced that we give it credit for, and it seems rather irrefutable that some societies found places to recognize gay relationships. the overall point is that this goes to the heart of one argument against gay marriage/civil unions -- unleashing the flood gates! what could happen! has never been tried before! -- and is also simply interesting.

and, finally, we gave you people the Sistine Chapel. why can't you give us some respect?

:wink:
 
Well if you had civil unions 600 years ago then I guess supporting them now would be a "Conservative" point of view. You know, maintaining status quo/tradition, all that good stuff. Well.
 
gay people exist. they've always existed. they exist in roughly the same numbers in every society in every country throughout the world and throughout history. Memphis and i watched a documentary last night about coming out in the 3rd world, and whether it's Pakistan or Malaysia or Namibia, nearly everyone's experience is almost exactly the same (despite different political circumstance). it's so obviously a normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality. what is so freaking hard about finding a place for gay people in society?

No no no!!!! According to Melon and PhillyFan, it was much different back then. Homosexuality then, is not the same as it is now. They didn't have loving, caring, monogomous relationships back then.

Hogwash.
 
MadelynIris said:
No no no!!!! According to Melon and PhillyFan, it was much different back then. Homosexuality then, is not the same as it is now. They didn't have loving, caring, monogomous relationships back then.

Hogwash.

What they were referring to in the Bible was not loving, caring, monogomous relationships.
 
MadelynIris said:
No, you specifically said that homosexual relationship did not exist they way the do now, today. Which still flabbergasts me.

Right, in Biblical times.

This thread is about medieval times.

Nothing in the Bible talks about modern homosexuality. As Ormus said, in the post I linked, they refer to Roman temple orgys and pederasty. That was my point.

In actuality, I'm sure these relationships did exist, but no heterosexual person, including those who wrote the Bible even began to understand them. The public displays of homosexuality, or at least the ones known to them, were these orgys and the practice of pederasty.
 
MadelynIris said:


No no no!!!! According to Melon and PhillyFan, it was much different back then. Homosexuality then, is not the same as it is now. They didn't have loving, caring, monogomous relationships back then.

Hogwash.

That's not exactly what was stated and your timelines are slightly off...
 
You guys are funny to think that the only homosexuality that existed before 600AD was temple orgies and such.

Ok, so maybe caring, monogomous homosexual relationships may have started in 300AD? Splitting the difference. ;)

No, I simply stated that I think homosexuality has existed in all of history and ancient times, and I don't buy the argument that people did not realize it existed or understood what it is/was or the nature of two people of the same sex loving each other as a man and a woman would.
 
BTW, Irvine, this article supports what I would hope we can achieve one day. It is right in line with my hope for all people who want to join in a union.
 
MadelynIris said:
You guys are funny to think that the only homosexuality that existed before 600AD was temple orgies and such.

Ok, so maybe caring, monogomous homosexual relationships may have started in 300AD? Splitting the difference. ;)

I don't think anyone is really stating that.


MadelynIris said:

No, I simply stated that I think homosexuality has existed in all of history and ancient times, and I don't buy the argument that people did not realize it existed or understood what it is/was or the nature of two people of the same sex loving each other as a man and a woman would.

You don't buy the argument that people did not realize it or understood? They hardly understand now???:huh:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

You don't buy the argument that people did not realize it or understood? They hardly understand now???:huh:

Makes it even more ridiculous in my opinion.
 
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 think that this is just not what is referred to in the Bible.
I guess the argument is, that what was condemned in the Bible was the orgies and pederastry, but not a "normal" homosexual relationship.
But out of convenience people made those lines statements against homosexuality in all its forms.
 
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 think it was the 70's where it was actually eliminated from physcology texts as a mental disorder. So to ignore that history has not looked kindly on homosexual relationships is crazy...
 
No, not ignoring the history of the last 200 years for sure. But the last 3000? Seems like society has had stretches of acceptance, and that it's more of a recent aberration.
 
MadelynIris said:


No no no!!!! According to Melon and PhillyFan, it was much different back then. Homosexuality then, is not the same as it is now. They didn't have loving, caring, monogomous relationships back then.

Hogwash.



homosexuality has been around forever.

a gay identity is a modern concept.
 
Back
Top Bottom