Reddit reviews Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

"But it's the blessing of a friendship, adelphopoiesis, as described in Boswell (https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645)."

It is an oversimplification. Keep /u/cephalopodie's caveat in mind, but we do have references to sexual dynamics that we could consider precursors to LGBTQI folks. I would point you in the way of John Boswell's work on same-sex unions in Pre-Modern Europe. Boswell points to some extant textual references of the Catholic church performing same-sex unions. The key term here is some. See also this work. Here is some more up to date takes on the thesis. Keep in mind, I have not read this one. I would also invite you to take a look at Virginia Burrus' work.

Indeed. Such a person, however, would likely be unfamiliar with biblical textual criticism, the history of homosexuality in the Roman empire at the time of Christ, the history of homosexuality within the Christian tradition, the history of the interpretation of these scriptures, and unfamiliar with psychological literature that almost unanimously shows that people who live repressing same-sex attraction are nearly universally miserable.


Here's a to read list:
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420072538&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus


http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1420072525&sr=8-3&keywords=john+boswell


http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420072525&sr=8-1&keywords=john+boswell

You are profoundly idiotic. Same sex marriage has been performed for thousands of years dumbass. https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645

Actually that's not really true.

A number of early rituals for same-sex unions exist in the doumentary record of the early European church which, while controversial for obvious reasons, show a quite different picture of the premodern church.

Link

I suspect you're just trolling, but if you are sincere there's a whole history you might enjoy: https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/

For which part?

Polygamy is strictly upheld in the Bible itself. (I'm sure I could find you specific passages, if this is what you're asking me to source)

The U.S. is a secular state. It's enshrined in almost every one of our founding documents.

I suspect what you're asking about are Christian gay marriages, though. There's an excellent book, which relies on a lot of source documents called Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. It goes from Rome during the founding of Christianity right up to approximately the Schism, if I remember correctly.

This will be a long post, but you might find it interesting. If you look at history, you'll find that humanity is simply returning to how it used to be. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors were by far the most egalitarian (in terms of gender equality) societies that have ever existed.

Here's a study on ancestral 'androphilic males' who were transgender and adopted female social roles: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258845876_Male_Androphilia_in_the_Ancestral_Environment_An_Ethnological_Analysis

"The kin selection hypothesis posits that male androphilia (male sexual attraction to adult males) evolved because androphilic males invest more in kin, thereby enhancing inclusive fitness. Increased kin-directed altruism has been repeatedly documented among a population of transgendered androphilic males, but never among androphilic males in other cultures who adopt gender identities as men ... Among transgendered societies, negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality were unlikely. We conclude that the ancestral human sociocultural environment was likely conducive to the expression of the transgendered form of male androphilia."

So ancestrally transgender male-to-female individuals existed, and functioned within hunter-gatherer societies. They were valued members of society because of their "kin-directed altruism", meaning, their selfless concern/nurture of family and adoption of traditionally female social roles in their societies.

"In contrast, transgendered androphilic males often occupy alternative gender role categories distinct from the categories of “men” and “women,” and they exhibit gender role presentation that is markedly similar to that of members of the opposite sex within their given cultural context. Both sex-gender congruent and transgendered male androphilia may occur within a given culture, but typically one or the other tends to predominate (Whitam 1983). For example, the sex-gender congruent form is more common in many Western cultures, whereas the transgendered form appears to be more common in a number of non-Western cultures."

Homosexual males and straight male-to-female transgenders both existed ancestrally and historically, however transgenders existed more in non-Western cultures than Western ones. Now consider the "berdache", or Two-spirit native Americans. When Christian Europeans came to America they viewed these transgender people as "sodomites" or homosexuals, and as such, in a very negative light due to their Christian religious views on homosexuality.

"Unfortunately, depending on an oral tradition to impart our ways to future generations opened the floodgates for early non-Native explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists to write books describing Native peoples and therefore bolstering their own role as experts. These writings were and still are entrenched in the perspective of the authors who were and are mostly white men." Pember, Mary Annette (Oct 13, 2016). "'Two Spirit' Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes".

A book written by historian John Boswell has plenty of evidence to show that homosexuals were actually accepted by the Church in early pre-modern Europe: https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645.

At some point in time however, major religions such as Christianity and Islam decreed homosexuality and transgenderism sins, and since then, atrocious human rights abuses have been inflicted on gay or trans people. History has been written by the victors, and often the victors were Christian, and thus history and religious dogma has skewed the views of many uneducated (uneducated in a historical sense) modern societies. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a feminine man or masculine woman, or transgender woman or transgender man, or homosexual or bisexual etc, and historically there wasn't either. The widespread, powerful corrupting influence of religion has played a major role in shaping homophobia and transphobia, especially in Western societies today, which is a shame. But thankfully for us, things are returning to the (historical) norm.

It's arguments over interpretation of very ancient texts. Kind of like why some denominations thing divorce or alcohol or women being ordained is a problem, while others think they're just fine.

The texts often cited as condemning same gender relationships aren't nearly as clear or obvious in meaning or application as they're often presented. Most general lists of the wicked that include "homosexuals" can be dismissed outright; there was no word in Greek or Hebrew for "homosexuals" as a class of people. The word in most of those lists literally means "soft," and was used pejoratively to mean anything from physical weakness to greed or cowardice. German and English translations from a couple hundred years ago typically translated it as "masturbator."

The story of Sodom is often brought up, but it's an ancient hospitality morality play. Classic trope, gods or demi-gods appear in human form and seek shelter. If welcomed and protected (like Abraham did) they give reward (Abraham got Issac). If attacked they punish (in Judges there's a nearly identical story, which leads to the decline of the tribe of Benjamin). It doesn't have much to do with any same gender relationships that aren't attempted gang-rape of angels.

Even the famous levitical passage on not lying with another man as with a woman isn't as clear as it looks. It comes sandwiched between a variety of laws long abandoned as no longer relevant (have you sprinkled your basement with bird blood to purify it from house leprosy lately?), but this one somehow still gets attention.

It comes in the context of the Babylonian exile when traumatized people were trying to figure out what went wrong, and how to maintain their identity as a people without a state. Many concluded that they were being punished, and their punishment could end if they abandoned all religious practices they deemed "un-Israelite." Many of these practices had been common in Israel for centuries, but had come to be associated with foreigners. Sacred sexual rites including m/m pairings were among the practices rejected.

And the Babylonian exile brought the authors of the text into contact with Babylonian culture, which included the practice of providing aristocratic men with catamites (boy sex slaves) or eunuchs as a pregnancy-free substitute for women. Pregnancy was dangerous for aristocratic wives, and female slaves risked bloodline-endangering bastards.

Men were castrated as boys to keep them feminine, and they were literally used "as if they were women" - as available fuck objects who belonged to their master. Both Babylonian and Israelite cultures were profoundly misogynist, and to have sex with a man as if he were a woman was to make him your slave and rape him. The authors of Leviticus are clearly not fans of m/m sex, but their perspective is like that of a man whose only experience of m/m relationships came from seeing brutal rape.

Compare this with, say, the story of young future-King David, and Saul's son Jonathan. Their relationship is a pretty unambiguously sexual, divinely blessed union of two men.

Then get to the New Testament, and the only reference to same gender relationships (and the only negative reference to f/f relationships in the whole Bible) comes from Paul's letter to the Romans. In it he describes how "idolaters" (non-Jews, probably members of the cult of Bacchus) worshiped other gods, therefor the real god punished them by making them super gay. He is probably thinking of the sacred sexual rites the cult of Bacchus practiced in Rome, which included various gender pairings. Paul is clearly not a fan, but Paul isn't god, and none of this is very applicable to those whose gay sex is not part of cultic worship of Bacchus.

So... yea. Different denominations have very different ideas on how various passages should be accurately translated, interpreted, and applied to daily life. In relatively modern Christian history a homophobic attitude has been the assumed default. But it hasn't been like that consistently or universally throughout Christian history. There were medieval knights married, blessed, and buried together. There are pre-Constantine saints in divinely blessed m/m relationships.

Have you ever been to a same sex ceremony? It's can be as much of a God Blessed Holy Union as any other. To deny that is arrogant pride and the 'b' word. And you would place yourself in judgement of others as if you were the creator.

We don't need any laws to protect Churches. These are just new scapegoats to find ways to discriminate against people. Which is wrong.

As I have stated twice already, the USA the state and Church are separate. They became so when we separated from the Monarchy and The Church.

I could sue you for wearing pink shorts. Doesn't mean I would win and not be forced to pay your legal fees.

You don't know your Torah because some of the couples are not sex specific and may be same sex couples. It wasn't important enough to specify.

King David wrote some very romantic psalms to men. That you refuse to acknowledge this or deny it is revealing of your lack of historical awareness or underlying agenda. But at least you understand he slept around with a whole bunch of women. So when modern Christians try to say 'traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage' you know and acknowledge they are lying.

Look, it's been fun, but you really don't seem to have enough historical context to understand and you seem to want to just find excuses to discriminate against people.

Allow me to recommend a book to study Same Sex Marriage in Pre Modern Europe. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645

Revealing: "They also had marriage with animals and objects." Interestingly you do not call the same sex marriages I cited as, marriage, but you do when it suits your agenda to objects and animals.

"...animals and object" Oh, you are one of those. Why didn't you just say so? It amazes me someone could be on the internet, on reddit, exposed to all this knowledge and different experiences and still be one of those. But hey, we probably have some flat earthers here too.

If you want to be a bigot, just be one. But don't try to hide it under a veil of hunt and pick religions and a lack of understanding of history, nature, tradition, reason, compassion and the human condition.

> Actually, you are wrong and ahistorical. Before "traditional marriage", women were the dominate in relationships,

You're just going farther back than I am. I don't disagree that even earlier social constructs were based around a system of matriarchy. However, the current construct of marriage is based around the transfer of property from one man to another man as a business contract. Even in "The Iliad" we have a version of marriage where it acceptable and desireable for a man to take concubines (female POWs whose function is to be raped).

This earlier version of marriage I would certainly be interested to learn more about, but I'm low on actual real references to the actual ceremonies and the type of agreements therein.

> Many early tribes worshiped women and were even ruled by them.

True, but we don't have any recordings of their ceremonies or the parameters of the relationship therein. For example, the ancient Yamato people were allegedly originally a Matriarchy before the Koreans came and messed things up by introducing Confucianism. What we don't have is an understanding of marriage during this time as it would have been understood by them, so mostly we can only speculate.

I have even seen documentaries on current tribes where things are communal.

I do rather like John Boswell in Christianity Homosexuality and Social Tolerance and Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the latter giving an idea of more variety.

You also get an upgoat from me.

> Gay Marriage for example, the bible says to love everyone but gay marriage is the most disgraced thing around churches now.

And yet there's this book that has evidence of pre-modern acceptance of gay unions:

Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe

A controversial read, depending on your POV, so maybe not for everyone.

I'm a nonbeliever, and even when I was I knew the bible was not intended to be taken literally (like snakes and virgin births). A lot of it is allegorical to illustrate points, and some of it is just the mythology and oral history of a middle-eastern tribe that was eventually written down. Personally, I take issue with the misogyny rampant throughout (not terribly fond of Augustine et.al.). And yet I don't dismiss the good parts. If you believe in god, then you must have been given your brains for a reason. Use them.

That site is Catholic, so there are a few attempts to imply they were somehow non-sexual unions. Here's a copy of the book that brought it to light in the modern era: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645 I gave my mom a copy when I came out. It sat in the trunk of her car and never left until it got moldy and was thrown out. Catholics really have a need to believe "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be" but that's just not true, is it?

edit For those of you short on history, the 5th century actually predates the creation of the vulgate (an official, single-version bible) and the creation of a unified, "universal" Christian religion.

The true history of matrimonial union? Hah. You seem to think that marriage today is the same as it was back when. It wasn’t. Go dig through some history books. Check out Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0679751645?slotNum=0&ascsubtag=9b7b5b7846620fed206cc858897736fd2a13e639&linkCode=g12&imprToken=09lB66.uks-LapfmRHrhug&creativeASIN=0679751645&tag=gawker0a-20

As to the mind, you appear to have a mystical viewpoint here, so we are talking entirely different languages, and it isn’t the mystical viewpoint I’m familiar with.

There are about twenty human species that we know about including our own. Some of the more well known ones are:

Homo Sapiens (us) ⭐️
Homo Neanderthal ⭐️
Homo Denisovan (there are three Denisovan species but we know little about them) ⭐️
Homo Naledi
Homo Floresiensis
Homo Erectus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Antecessor

Those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. The ones with stars we know are/were sentient, the others we don’t have enough information on to know. Yet.

The brain structure of LGBTQ people is different. Brain scans clearly show it.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

Rape was legal, in fact it was required. So was killing all the men and male children. Go read the Old Testament on the invasion of Canaan.

When I hear that argument from people, religious or not, I bring up the eight types of marriage in the bible, none of which match the legal marriage of today:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

My point isn't about the bible as such, but rather, that the societal definition of marriage has changed. Indeed, my next point is that in 1900 a marriage was basically the taking of one woman by one man of the same race and religion from her father as (basically) property. If I want to be really picky about it, I refer to this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/

...which establishes plainly that marriage had basically no definite definition until about 1300 (when the spanish inquisition got involved), but that it was definitely a property transaction, not an institution of "love" or "family".

And for your dad personally, I'd tell him that if society defined marriage, society can re-define marriage, and then I'd point out the demographics that establish that that is going to happen:

http://www.gaymarriageresearch.com/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/

...so he might as well start trying to get used to the idea.

A link to the Wiki page on John Boswell, the Yale historian who wrote a book about same-sex unions in the church. link

his book

It's really not all "bollocks".

Interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645