A study in the September issue of Journal of Modern History indicates that same-sex marriages may have existed as early as the 16th century.
Allan A. Tulchin asserts that the French and other European cultures may have supported Рand, in fact, sponsored Рarrangements similar to same-sex unions. The arrangements, called affr̬rement (which translates to brotherment) closely resemble modern marriage contracts. Tulchin explains:
All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other’s legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés… [There is] considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships…They loved each other, and the community accepted that.
There’s been a “radical shift in attitudes” between the age of affrèrement and today, says Tulchin, when anti-gay marriage activists espouse the Biblical origins of the nuclear family.
Could this knock a hole in “traditionalist’s” arguments or will they continue to ignore the compelling evidence? Take a wild guess…
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Paul Raposo
“Could this knock a hole in ‘traditionalist’s’ arguments or will they continue to ignore the compelling evidence? Take a wild guess…”
Let me see…I’d guess no. Oh wait–that was a rhetorical question, right?
If Christ himself came down off the cross and said, “Hey, douchebags! I never said queers can’t get married,” the anti-equal marriage brigade would nail him on that cross again and go about their anti-gay business–which is what it is, a rather lucrative business. I guess this will be just another reason for anti-gay Americans to hate Europeans, especially the French.
Qjersey
Well it’s a great argument for civil unions…but not same sex marriage…seems that “alternative arrangements” have a historical basis.
Dawster
you know, the whole reason we even have “marriage” today is because women were considered property in bible times.
in oder to have REAL biblical marriage, we would have to return to the times when women had no voice, presented a dowry, was subservient to the man, married a husband’s brother if the husband died (you know, because women needed to be taken care of), and people like atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. should not be allowed to marry because they do not follow “the holy bible”.
gay’s will never fit “traditional marriage”… but nether will anyone else…
Tallskin
Actually marriage was originally a property relationship, hence the reason for it being a contract – and was originally limited to those with property, the landed gentry, aristocrats etc.
And so filthy was the act of marriage considered (it involved SEX for god’s sake!) that couples were married outside of the church.
Point is that the great mass of people did not get married in our sense until the end of the medieval period