This is interesting

[emmagrant01]

Gay marriage goes way back

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.

Article here

Comments

[lunadeath02.livejournal.com]

Someone needs to write an AU H/D fic of this! Of medieval Europe 600 years ago and brotherment, H & D getting married, etc. :)

[lunadeath02.livejournal.com]

Oops, I also meant to say: Booyah! about the article. :)

[fourth_rose]

Um. Historian here, specialising in European medieval history, and - sorry, but no. The stuff this article is about are household arrangements, which were certainly different from what we now mean by "nuclear family" (which is a much younger concept anyway), but they had absolutely nothing to do with anything sexual. Besides, the whole concept of "civil unions" is a modern one - I can only hope the report mangled some things up, and a historian did not actually use these terms to describe medieval society.

[duare.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with that, I was talking about the article with one of my flatmates (and both of us did middle ages history classes at university), and we are both of the opinion that this article is what we call in spanish "aberración histórica" (historical aberration) as to try to explain past fact with the nowadays mentality.

[andriel.livejournal.com]

Um. Human here, specialising in living relatively close to the antarctic, and - sorry, but no, icebergs do not exist, I have never seen one. The stuff people are talking about are ice cubes that fell out of my drink. I will be going to tell the people with PhDs at the local research divisions that haven't seen one yet that they have been led on also. What?? Pictures?? Evidence?? Bah! You just stuck my ice cube in a giant freezer.

If you read the article again they mention that yes you are correct, many of them had nothing to do with anything sexual, but in the case of unrelated men Tulchin states there is “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

That doesn't look mangled to me, that looks like a direct quote from research Tulchin has done, and obviously you will need to be examining this evidence Tulchin has to dispute it, rather than stating your general knowledge in the area. If historians are scientists then you need to be using empirical falsifiability not baconian induction. Being a historian you could be forgiven for living in the past though.

[puppydifranco.livejournal.com]

*cheers*

[slayra.livejournal.com]

I just read the article, and I'll have to agree with fourth_rose here. Not that I want to be discouraging or anything, but she's right. According to the evidence provided by Tulchin, the chances of this pertaining to same-sex marriages is pretty thin. She actually presented the reason why that isn't very probable. There were no "civil unions" in the Middle Ages, so these unions Tulchin speaks of aren't marriages. Marriages were performed solely by the Church (nothing to do with the King or the authorities), which says it all... no Catholic priest would join two men or two women back then (most woudn't do it now).

I am not saying, of course that some men didn't use those agreements (the "affrèrés") to live together as a couple... but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the purpose of the "affrèrés" was to join two men as a couple or that they were created for that reason. If I had to fanthom a guess, I'd say it had to do with guilds (groups of workers and masons) and other such groups that were quite widespread in late medieval Europe. Also, no way homosexuality wasn't a taboo in an age where people lived in fear of God and the Church. If these "affrèrements" had been from late-roman/early medieval I'd say the probability of them being marriages would be higher, although I'd still wouldn't put much stock into it.

Tulchin fails to mention the mentality of the period so he doesn't put these "affrèrés" into context (because Medieval society, as we have ample proof wasn't very liberated at all). It would be highly improbable (note, I didn't say impossible).

If you want to look for tolerance for homosexuality (at least male x male), look for it in Ancient Greece, Rome and even Egypt. In Greece, men considered themselves superior to women and were encouraged to have relationships (platonic or otherwise) with other men. And in Rome... well, everyone had sex with everyone, so, lol. Nah, actually, it wasn't considered strange if the man of the house had affairs with his female or male slaves and vice versa (woman of the house with her slaves, yadda, yadda). They were quite open about their sexuality.

Er... sorry for the boring history lesson... just saying. O___O

[andriel.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your reply, you far from agreed with fourth_rose though. I feel what is being misunderstood here is that no one is claiming this was religiously sanctioned. By definition civil unions are nothing to do with religion. A quick grab from answers.com defines them as "A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority." and as encompassing "certain aspects of marriage for purposes of that state's laws". I would laugh at someone that tried to tell me any relations between men were condoned by the church. I am lucky enough to live in a state where a "partner registry" grants the same rights as marriage, but this has nothing to do with the church, it is instead a form of civil union. Church = marriage. State = civil union (i.e. an agreement).

My objection fourth_roses's comment was her saying "they had absolutely nothing to do with anything sexual", and naming civil unions to be a modern concept. Civil union is the name, and only a name, that Tulchin is using to describe what I gave a definition for. Of course no one was petitioning GLBT rights! What is simply to be commended in Tulchin's finding is the "the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago", one that was perhaps accepted even in an abstract form, not any religious acceptance of the practice of homosexuality.

(Nor was I trying to claim the affrèrés were designed for this purpose either, I merely think the possibility that this was but one of their purposes is what should be considered).

[andriel.livejournal.com]

Replace "purposes" with "uses" (or perhaps even "common uses") in the last line, I didn't mean to imply they even partially intended this to be their use when they created them either. Though I have no clue there either, maybe they did ;)

[slayra.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, I suppose I didn't explain myself correctly then. I know you weren't saying that this was religiously sanctioned. I was merely pointing out that there were no "civil unions" in the middle ages. Such a concept did not exist because all unions were made through the Church. Not even the King and his officials (the only government they had back then) recognized any union not sanctioned by the Church.

Today, for a marriage to be valid, you need a paper from the government. Our marriages are civil affairs (fortunately). But in the Middle Ages, a valid marriage was a when a priest declared a couple man and wife. Thus, these "affrères" can never be the equivalent of civil marriage, as there was no civil marriage.

Now if Tulchin had said that probably some men used these kind of agreements to live together... I could go with that, although all the documents prove is that two or more men have agreed to share their food and their home (as I said that was probably mutual support and help between workers/masons aka the builders of stone buildings for when they hit hard times). From what I read, the "affrères" aren't the equivalent of a civil union.
Also, homosexuality really wasn't tolerated. People had their mentalities shaped from the craddle, so even if one was homosexual, they'd try to repress it because it was seen as a sin. It's sad, and a retrocess from the Antiquity, when homosexuality was tolerated and even encouraged in certain circles. And it can all be blamed on the Church.
But, like I said, Tulchin really didn't take into account:
1. The mentality of the period (fear of Hell, of the Church, etc);
2. The fact that "civil union" is in fact a modern concept, that first appeared in Victorian times or something like that (late 1800s, so we're far from the Middle Ages). The Middle Ages didn't have any other kind of way to "unite" people besides marriage in a Church. There were certain types of associations, like Guilds, and you had to take an oath and all, but that is it.
3. The monarchy system is nothing like our modern governments. Judges were just nobles and a judge was for solving disputes or to arrest and hang criminals.

Of course, we can't be sure that these agreements weren't made, sometimes, by homosexual couples. There must have been occasions, yes.

Erm... sorry if this is a mess, I am not english, lol. ^____^

[cherrysyllabub.livejournal.com]

This is really cool! I hope it is true.

[rabidpotterfan.livejournal.com]

Very cool...if it's true!

[karadin.livejournal.com]

In China, specifically in the southern coastal areas, in the Tang period, 618-907, homosexual marriage became common. Typically an older partner would seek a younger one, the arrangement approved by his family, often the men, when older, could seek a heterosexual marriage with the older partner's approval, though marriages between men of equal age and status were also known.

[slayra.livejournal.com]

In Japan, homosexual relationships were widely accepted, throughout. I think that is why japanese are much more open to it, nowadays than many western people. ^____^