In recent times a new brand of research has ‘appeared’ which says that the Ancient World used to have gay weddings on every corner and wasn’t the world a better place before Christianity.
Now, this seems awfully convenient.
I did some Googling on a quote that came up on Facebook, and found that the Guardian had run an article on the idea of ‘two-spirit’ people and how great the Native Americans thought they were etc.
And then I found a tract by the guy that wrote it also implying that Jesus was gay with John the Baptist.
I’m always sceptical of convenient research or opinions (like the number of people who find that God agrees with them on everything).
Is there actually any evidence of these weddings/institutions, or is this new-age woo?
John the Baptist? What I’d heard from people who see teh gay everywhere was John the Evangelist (who calls himself “the beloved disciple”), not St. Cousin.
We don’t have any contemporaneous accounts of his life, and the church hasnt exactly been a friend to the gays throughout history so that would have been one of the first things struck out of their accounts of his life.
In truth we don’t even know that he actually existed at all.
If they were common in the Roman empire, or the Egyptian, some writing about it would have survived. I can’t think of anything written about it. The early Christians would have maken a big to-do about it, to prove how horrible those heathens were.
Even the Greeks, who allegedly were into that sort of thing, did not make a federal case of it.
the Bible makes no mention of the areas surrounding the CHosen People behaving in a an abominable manner…
I suspect homophobia is a fairly common situation in many societies, not just Christian.
And while Boswell’s interpretation suggestions gay unions and his detractors deny that, what’s missing is good testimony by those who underwent those ceremonies.
I don’t have a cite, but back when my husband was super into Lakota and other Native American stuff, and certainly before the whole gay marriage thing became even a glimmer of possibility, I do recall learning about at least one New England tribe that let you essentially decide your gender role at the time of adulthood. There was something about men liking to have women-born-as-men as a wife because it meant you could take your wife on hunting trips instead of leaving her home. Now that I think about it, that doesn’t make sense, because wives stay home to do women stuff while men go out to do men stuff. There was also something about another tribe where you chose your role, and lived that role completely from adulthood on, being treated in all respects as someone born that gender.
In any case, I can conclusively tell you that if the gay N.A. thing is made up, it was made up well over 25 years ago by people with no political benefit from doing so.
In some circumstances, particularly when someone has an axe to grind or a point to make, Wikipedia is not the best source. When I google Juvenal and gay marriage, I find, for example:
Juvenal wrote a satire. In it, he holds out a man dressing in a bridal veil (I assume getting married) as a bad thing. This no more suggests gay marriage was a common and accepted thing, than “La Cage aux Folles” suggests the same about modern France. And… this writing survived, as did many other risque writings of the Greeks and Romans. The monk/copyists of the medieval era were not absolute censors, nor (according to some stories) all prudes.
Of course, if you want to argue that homosexuality existed everywhere, all times, I doubt any but the most opinionated will deny that.
Perhaps the best non-wiki Google result is this:
But once again, this is a single source with a point of view.
Marital has one poem which describes one marriage.
And the third source mentioned -
So we have two allegedly fictional accounts condemning behaviour by rich and self-indulgent aristocrats, and one crazy self-indulgent Roman emperor who seems to have done anything simply because nobody could tell him “no”. The author then stretches this into “this is normal behaviour”.
Also keep in mind that none of the Roman writers were above passing off blatant libellous fiction as a means of settling grudges with the high and mighty. (Of course, we see something similar with the libellous history of Richard III)
So some spoiled emperors and aristocrats might have indulged in “gay marriage”, or farces like that; authors engaged in social commentary may have imagined or repeated social gossip.
(I almost imagine Santorum popping in here to mention Caligula, just to make a point…)
No, but I might pop in to mention Elagabulus. I am not entirely certain that I would call someone who was a male to female trans that couldn’t get proper surgery a homosexual. I am quite certain that currently he would have been in a program and snipped in fair order.
Not only are those cites questionable (as mentioned above), but if you read, most of those unions don’t seem to have been legal: There is nothing stopping two lads in any state in the US (or in the EU) from grabbing a friend, dressing him up as a priest and engaging in a spiritual union.
This is my point. The article I cited seems to take the same tack as the Wiki article - stretches two fictional satires and one self-indulgent mad emperor into “this happened all the time”. There is no indication in any surviving writings that this sort activity was any more common than Caligula and his horse.
I’m sure in San Fancisco or Greenwhich Village some similar cermeonies happened celebrated from time to time among the closed circle of like-minded friends. But… that does not imply it was common in our full society or widely socially accepted or officially sanctioned.
The fact that those are the only cites in the article suggests strongly to me there are no other examples to back up the claim. It has become a meme, repeated frequently, to convince the world at large of a specific point of view.
It reminds me of the article by one of those “Our Bodies Ourselves” fanatics about how women had perfectly good traditional folk medicine birth control in ancient and medieval times until interfering religious and male medical types deprived women of that knowledge to subjugate them to male society… Self-deception and selective interpretation to push an agenda and a point of view.
If you want to argue that gays have been pesecuted, or that some other societies were far more tolerant - no argument here. Some cultures adapted their social mores to human behaviour rather than try to hammer everyone through the round hole of dogma. But… I’m sorry, I just don’t see the evidence that ancient societies regularly practiced and accepted standard marriage cermonies, or common law type of arrangements with the equivalent to all the rights of marriage, between same-sex partners.
I know this isn’t Great Debates (yet), but you’re moving the goalposts continuously in this thread. What’s even more odd is you claim that Wikipedia is not a credible source and then go on to prove that by googling two words.
[QUOTE=md2000]
Wikipedia is not the best source. When I google Juvenal and gay marriage
[/QUOTE]
You asked:
if there was evidence not acceptance
if they existed not if they were regularly practiced (not sure what would define regular since it’s a vague word), and
if they conferred all the same rights, where rights during a marriage have changed and evolved and are completely different from country to country, from time to time, and religion to religion.
If you have a specific question, please ask it. Or I would recommend asking this to be moved to Great Debates since you seem to have an axe to grind.
My response expands on the theory this is new-age woo.
Two apparently fictional accounts, one obviously a satire, and a crazy emperor. (As a counterpoint, another crazy emperor married his horse - allegedly).
The article cited seems to repeat Wikipedia but more technical and scholarly; yet again, they only source I saw about the practice in that supposedly more scholarly and precise article, was the same 3 questionable instances cited and then a lot of fluff expanding it into “it happens on every street corner…”
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing against gay marriage. What two people agree to do, the law can be gender-blind(?) to. I’m just responding to the OP to say - from what I read in the lines and between - it did not appear to happen as a matter of normalcy, at least in the Roman culture from the few examples cited.
If I’ve missed a few more cites suggesting the practice was common or sanctioned “when in Rome”, by all means tell us. This is not argument or debate, it’s answering questions.
The Lakota did not live in New England, but they did recognize what they called “two souls” people or Winkte, in the Lakota language. They were thought to have a certain type of spirituality that was beneficial and not detrimental to the tribe. Not sure if they actually married men, and I’m not sure if this was ever used to denote lesbians (as opposed to gay or transgendered men).