Has marriage ALWAYS been between a man and a woman?

Question

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.

Answer 1

Personally, I don't think it is any of my business who is doing what with whom, just so long as it is two consenting adults, and nothing illegal is going on. Just like two heterosexual people, two homosexual people have the right to do as they so choose in the privacy of their own home.

If they would like to declare their love for all to see by getting "married", then why not? Again, as long as no one forces me to do something I don't agree with, who am I to tell others how they must live their lives?

And to all of you bible thumpers - if it is a sin, I think that they will be judged for it then. It is not up to you to judge. So leave it alone!!!!

Answer 2

Are you now defining marriage as EITHER a marriage or a civil union? Because the French language -- as I'm sure you are aware -- has a word for "marriage", and it ain't "affrèrement". I thought that advocates for gay marriage oppose the idea of civil unions as a kind of "separate-but-equal" scheme -- don't they?

Same-sex unions have never been defined as "marriage". Their formation did not prevent the parties from later marrying members of the opposite sex; while their dissolution did not involve a divorce. And, it seems to me, you are now lumping "unions" which did not necessarily involve a sexual relationship together with "marriage". Coragryph's take on the story of Ruth and Naomi is neat, but analyzed to that degree, we might as well say that mere friendship, sharing an apartment, or living with one's parent after reaching majority amounts to a "marriage". Would that make a kibbutz a kind of a polygamous arrangement?

Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage, but it doesn't mean that I will endorse ANY argument in its favor. I'm sorry, Romare & Coragryph, I usually agree with a lot of what you say, but this argument is bogus.

Answer 3

The legal structure of Marriage is to provide support for Children and property rights for family members. I don't care who is porking what.
If you want to define Domestic Partners as Domestic Animals that's up to you.

Do you know Allan Tulchins credentials?
I recall some totally unqualified Professors at Shippensburg.

Answer 4

This has been going on back to ancient Egypt. All sorts of unions made between same sex, opposite sex, siblings, parents and children.

What's the difference? Marriage is a legal concept. That's the bottom line.

Whether to get married or not is a moral question no one can answer because its personal to the people who decide.

Answer 5

No -- in fact, throughout history, the concept of monogamous male-female marriage is actually fairly rare.

And same-sex marriage goes back to the Bible -- read the story of the covenant between Ruth and Naomi -- in addition to the examples you gave of other cultures who practiced it.

There are no valid secular grounds to discriminate legal benefits on the basis of gender -- which is what the current bans against same-sex marriage do. They are purely gender-based discrimination, since they never mention sexual orientation.

And religious grounds -- whether valid or not for church purposes -- have no place as defining secular law.

Answer 6

I guess we could consider it evolution; whereas gay marriage could be considered what......devolution?