PDA

View Full Version : Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe


Jenson71
08-27-2007, 02:48 PM
Do you think the information in the article supports the title?
__________________________________________________
Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Mon Aug 27, 12:00 PM 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.”

http://www.livescience.com/history/070827_civil_unions.html

and/or

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070827/sc_livescience/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope

patteeu
08-27-2007, 03:10 PM
Do you think the information in the article supports the title?

Not really. Couples/groups, same-sex or otherwise and regardless of whether sexual relations are involved, could do these same types of things today by contract.

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

LMAO I wonder if this was supposed to be funny.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2007, 04:06 PM
Not really. Couples/groups, same-sex or otherwise and regardless of whether sexual relations are involved, could do these same types of things today by contract.

I made this argument at one time. It was countered with only up to point. It cannot apply, or so I was told, to next of kin issues for someone who is terminally ill or dying or things like that.

Do you have a good argument for that one? Just curious.You're the legal guy.


LMAO I wonder if this was supposed to be funny.
Well, they were more complicated....than marrying just for love, even if we don't think rationally about a love-choice, and wind up with pseudo-mom or pseudo-dad. :(

Really, family alliances to maintain wealth or gain wealth, or just for survival by betrothing someone at birth to someone else for the survival of family was a pretty complicated business. OR. If a sister was seen inappropriately going off with a man it would make all the other sisters un-marriagable. It was pretty complicated compared to today. Just read a lot of Jane Austen and you'll see what I mean.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2007, 04:19 PM
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.
I really have to wonder about such contracts unless they were private, even underground. Were these ever contested in a court to be backed up?

This article contradicts my info which was that marriage was handled by the churches not the state for most of western civilization because people just up and married. The states was involved in who could inherit property. I have heard this argument before that there were gay marriages, but again I assumed it was between the two individuals not a socially sanctioned idea by others.

There's no doubt in my mind that there were homosexual relationships though. In Greece & Rome they were accepted but not as marriage or the equivalent between then.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 04:51 PM
I made this argument at one time. It was countered with only up to point. It cannot apply, or so I was told, to next of kin issues for someone who is terminally ill or dying or things like that.

Do you have a good argument for that one? Just curious.You're the legal guy.

Sure... up to a point. Wills, Trusts, Living Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney, General Powers of Attorney, etc. will cover a lot of these issues.

Where you can't simulate marriage through contract are in areas where others are basing decisions on their view of your marital status. For example, you can't get the government to treat your contractual partner as a spouse when it figures out it's social security payments and you can't force a company that extends benefits to spouses to extend it to your contractual partner if they don't want to.

I don't think most of these things were issues in medieval society though, so for purposes of the argument being presented by the guy in the article, contracts today can do the things he's saying were done back in the day. For the guy you argued with, he's right that there are a few things personal contracts can't get around.

Well, they were more complicated....than marrying just for love, even if we don't think rationally about a love-choice, and wind up with pseudo-mom or pseudo-dad. :(

Really, family alliances to maintain wealth or gain wealth, or just for survival by betrothing someone at birth to someone else for the survival of family was a pretty complicated business. OR. If a sister was seen inappropriately going off with a man it would make all the other sisters un-marriagable. It was pretty complicated compared to today. Just read a lot of Jane Austen and you'll see what I mean.

I was talking about the choice of words.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 04:53 PM
I really have to wonder about such contracts unless they were private, even underground. Were these ever contested in a court to be backed up?

This article contradicts my info which was that marriage was handled by the churches not the state for most of western civilization because people just up and married. The states was involved in who could inherit property. I have heard this argument before that there were gay marriages, but again I assumed it was between the two individuals not a socially sanctioned idea by others.

There's no doubt in my mind that there were homosexual relationships though. In Greece & Rome they were accepted but not as marriage or the equivalent between then.

Yeah, I don't think the article provides any evidence of the kind of governmental recognition of gay unions that are being sought today.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2007, 05:24 PM
I was talking about the choice of words.
Oh! I just couldn't resist commenting for fun.


Yeah, I don't think the article provides any evidence of the kind of governmental recognition of gay unions that are being sought today.

Another thing that comes to mind is that the Medievel was the era of Christianity and primarily supremacy of the RCC. So if it occurred it would have had to be underground and very secret as opposed to the Greek and Roman eras.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 05:24 PM
Oh! I just couldn't resist commenting for fun.

:thumb: