Talk:History of same-sex unions

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Greetings! At a few Same-Sex Marriages the minister/priest said that, back in either the 900s or 1000s, a priest performed a marriage between two men. Does anyone have any further information on this history note?

Hello ! In the page of "History of same-sex unions", I've found the name "Diocletianus", but it must be a mistake. Therefore, I've changed his name to "Elagabalus". Hadrianvs et antinovs (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)hadrianvs et antinovs[reply]

I changed "Poppea" to "Poppaea" too. Hadrianvs et antinovs (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)hadrianvs et antinovs[reply]

What does "The teachings of the Talmud and Torah" have to do with the Early Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.184.172 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page equivocates between unions, relationships, and marriage. Homosexual relations are a normal part of human behavior and have been expressed in many forms. Occasionally society will recognize certain relationships as special, however to equivocate between these and 'unions' and then by association 'marriage' is wrong. IN many cases the relationships being held up as early examples of unions, such as pederasty are temporary by design. Mrdthree (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just editted with the same concern as Mrdthee above. The phrase "same-sex unions" in its contemporary usage does not include pederasty or male sex-slaves, etc. The article is a bit misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.68.34 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is the biggest problem with the page.Ragazz (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are two examples: a Roman emperor who married his slave, and the subsequent mention of the Native American cultures. I am NOT saying that the sentence is untrue. Please someone provide more examples.76.102.68.34 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose taking this sentence out, if noone can find more examples. It is a very strong statement, and should be backed up.76.102.68.34 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from Tony877's User talk page:

If I understand correctly we have two examples: 1) Ancient Rome (Nero marrying his eunuch slaves, etc.) and 2) Native Americans (transgender Two-Spirits taking straight spouses)

Are these the only two examples of same-sex marriage in history? If so, I don't see how you can possibly justify leaving the word "many" in the sentence. I propose leaving out the entire sentence because it's in the wrong place.76.102.68.34 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the talk page of that article. I know there are many examples in books that I have at home. I think Julius Caesar also had a husband. I'm not really sure why you are so insistent on making the articles about same-sex relationships seem like they are forced or only have pedophiles. It's very biased and honestly it's a little infuriating. If you can't remain neutral then you shouldn't be editing. Keep in mind that just because you find sources for something doesn't necessarily make it true or relevant. You may also consider making a username. Tony877 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Julius Caesar most certainly did not have a husband. It was rumored that he had a sexual relationship with a king in Asia Minor, and it is certainly possible that he did. The rumor was damaging to his reputation and may have merely been political propaganda. Even if we assume, however, that he did indeed have this relationship, it would not have counted as a marriage according to Roman law. Roman law permitted marriage between one man and one woman. It did not allow for polygamy or same-sex marriage. Same-sex relationships were not forbidden throughout most of Roman history, but they were not considered legal marriages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerephon1 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to talk about it on the talk page. You reverted my edits without talking about it, and thats why I am here. Are there "many" societies? So far we have two. I am trying to learn about the topic. My edits are trying to remove bias and misleading information for the pages. Obviously pederasty is wrong. Then why use it as a historical example of "same-sex union?" A page on history should be honest and stick to reputable academic sources. Of course common sense would dictate that there were all kinds of same sex relationships throughout history. But the page is called "Same-sex unions," which implies something more formal. It appears that the more formalized relationships were usually in the form of pederasty. Are you trying to argue this? I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge.76.102.68.34 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well your impression was wrong and it doesn't have a place intro. You are strategically placing it there and acting like you're trying to remove bias. Just like the people who oppose gay marriage say they are "defending" it when really they are just assholes and want their religion to dictate laws. What you learned in 9th grade social studies class about the Greeks doesn't mean that all or even most of the relationships were pederasty. Tony877 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Sources? Two is not many. I'm trying to learn, so I'm looking forward to seeing what you find. Again, though, "unions" not just "relationships."76.102.68.34 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't give a shit either way. There are enough people on here to protect the articles from people like you. If you are "trying to learn" as you claim (which I think is shit) then why don't you google it or bing it yourself? Tony877 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, we agree. Since you "don't give a shit either way," then you will not try to revert me when I delete the misleading sentence, after noone is able to find any more examples of actual marriage. People like me? I'm hoping this can stay civil here.76.102.68.34 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Since I hear no objections, I am deleting the sentence. This is not a major change. I wish people would reply here first, but if you revert the change at least please give your reasons here.76.102.68.34 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it was, the introduction was misleading in that its vagueness left it open for the reader to assume that same-sex marriage has had a long documented history. The descriptive phrase "highly ritualized unions" suggests marriage, and I have no arguement with it. I belive that the phrase "temporary pederastic relationships" or something like it should then be used. I was disappointed after the first time I read the article because I didn't realize that we were talking about these types of relationships. Everyone knows about the Spartan army, etc., but I didn't think that we referred to these parctices as "same-sex unions."

Here is the current version, with the last sentence I have sdded for clarity:

Although state-recognized same-sex unions are a relatively new phenomenon, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. In most cases, these unions were temporary pederastic relationships.76.102.68.34 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing this addition on the article, not any new information. The rest of the introduction is un-sourced. I don't see why my edit needs a source if its simply stating what is in the article below.76.102.68.34 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't sourced, doesn't mean the addition is validated in any sense of the term. Add a source, or stop adding it. –túrian^patois 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because it isn't sourced, doesn't mean the addition is validated in any sense of the term." I don't understand that sentence. Anyway, I added a source.76.102.68.34 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of your editing, can you please stop doing so many over and over? Just do everything you want all in one or two edits and be done with it. You're making it very hard to keep track.

I will consider that. However, when I have done that, and then people undo it, I wastes my time. For example, there may be one thing you don't like, and you undo the entire edit.76.102.68.34 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's called Wikipedia. You'll have to get over that part. If you add something that's not sourced then you should expect it to be reverted. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is some sort of rule about over editing so it's not really your choice.

Thanks for your guidance.76.102.68.34 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section for modern same-sex unions. Currently, this is included in the "North America" section, which is USA-centric, especially since Europe adopted SSM first. The section could be called "Modern History," or someone else could probably come up with something better.76.102.68.34 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Take California's Prop 22, for example. SSM did not exist in CA before that law. This sentence needs reworking, at the least.76.102.68.34 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that new info and sources are being added to this article. However, this is an encyclopedia, and it's important to keep things balanced. For example, the reference to Plutarch was important because the section, relating to homosexuality and early Christianity, did not acknowledge that there was any controversy surrounding homosexuality before the Christian emperors. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay about the evils of Christianity.Ragazz (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the changes, I restored the article to the previous version mainly because of the citation style, which mainly cited ancient texts directly. This method a) makes verifiability by other editors difficult if not impossible and b) fails to credit translators and intermediate authors (which is almost certainly where the original source was found by the editor). I saved the edits, becuase they were not all bad, they just needed work. Here they are:

The first recorded mention of the performance of

At least two of the the Roman Emperors were in gay unions. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."^[5] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. ^[6] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.^[7]

Ragazz (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The essay quoted in that article deals with a debate on the question whether the love of women or the love of youths is to be preferred. You can find that essay "Dialogue on Love" from Plutarch's Moralia in Volume IX of the Loeb Classical Library's edition of Plutarch's Moralia. The essay has nothing to do with Roman marriages or unions which were not age structured like those of Ancient Greece. (Unfortunately the text of the translation is not in the public domain but the book can be found here for sale: http://www.amazon.com/Plutarch-Moralia-Table-Talk-Dialogue-Classical/dp/0674994671)

As for the texts quoted in the Roman section, they are all available online. I will be adding links to the text and removing the biased Christian propaganda which you persist on placing on this article. 67.169.6.152 (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found another translation of the "Dialogue On Love" on Google Books which

is partially available for viewing. Please see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0-lpuGp776YC&pg=RA4-PA450&lpg=RA4-PA450&dq=Dialogue+on+Love+plutarch&source=bl&ots=a11aJ9Seoi&sig=y_rDtb3i-C5JSA_UP9MO0iYuu8Q&hl=en&ei=Dy3LSqThAYP0sQPT_t2cAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Dialogue%20on%20Love%20plutarch&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.6.152 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a journal article by a history professor/lawer that was used as sworn testimony in a SSM case. Moralia dealt with same-sex relationships in part. The section in this article doesn't deal with "unions" exclusively. Read more carefully before you delete well sourced material please. Christians were not the first in history to question homosexuality.Ragazz (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the references to Cicero and Juvenal are totally misleading. Cicero does not describe a same-sex union as a legal marriage. He is holding Antonius up to ridicule by saying he had been Curio's wife. According to Roman custom a man could penetrate another man, but to be penetrated was shameful and was a role properly reserved for slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerephon1 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[7]"

After having read both the sources listed under 7, there is no mention rejoicing amidst the citizesn. On the contrary, both sources state that this marriage was part of the reason that Elagabalus was later deposed. This should be struck out. user:robbini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 21, 22 and 23, describing the behaviors of the Emperors Nero and Sardanapalus (Elagabalus) are used out of context. Cassius Dio clearly puts the words "marriage" and "husband" in quotation marks, which would indicate that this was out of the norm for the time. It would appear that he does not approve of this behavior, freely using terms like "debauchery" to describe it (80:17). He also relates a story of how one Roman official praised Nero's decision to take a husband, and wished that his father had the same wisdom -- not because he approved of the marriage, but because if Nero's father had made that decision, Nero would not have been born (62:28).

The cases of Nero and Sardanapalus (Elagabalus) cannot be used as examples of institutionalized gay marriage. They are instances where bisexual males used their unlimited power to change the rules for themselves.

Ranger68 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is an oxymoron, whether or not "bisexual males used their unlimited power to change the rules for themselves", does not mean they cease to be examples of instituionalized gay marriage.85.59.62.132 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they still are out of context with Elagabalus being a child and Nero "marring" one. A lot of information is being left out or changed to fit an agenda. Dlpkbr (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nero married two men, and Caligula married his sister and also made one of his horses a senator.

we can't infer from Caligula's actions that the Romans permitted either brother-sister marriage or having non-human mammals as senators, just as we can't conclude, from Nero's actions, that the Romans recognized same-sex marriage.

the fact that some Americans married members of the own sex before the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in some states, although interesting -- and doubtless to some, fascinating -- curiosities, really doesn't tell anything about the attitudes of Americans toward homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian

Footnote 10 has a problem. All it says is "Bullough, p. 53" There is no other reference to what this "Bullough" refers to. I would attempt a fix but without more info, I'm not sure what can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilCivHR (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not present source of translation of the passage from the Codex. As this text is very ambiguous even in original, this cannot be tolerated by any encyclopaedia. Hence, I will change it into widely quoted Pharr's translation from 1952. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.0.233.186 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is some history of same-sex unions around the world." Who wrote this non-sequitur? It might as well say, "Although the present exists, the past also happened." 24.16.19.93 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be regarded as being biased to the extent that wherever the term "marriage" is used without being preceded by either "same-sex" or "homosexual", it is presumed to mean "opposite-sex" or "heterosexual" marriage. I would suggest that the appropriate modifiers be introduced before "marriage" unless the general, inclusive form of marriage is intended. john.garavelli 20:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.garavelli (talk • contribs)

Can somebody please lock this article and get it up to basic standards?

This article is an unreadable mess. I was looking for a source I could use about the history of publicly recognized same sex relationships in China and jfc this was useless. First off, rather than having its own section all of Asia is bundled under “the old world” and second off it has Ming China (14th to 17th century CE) listed before a blurb about ANCIENT EGYPT!

The entire article has an ongoing comment-response format that is very unhelpful. This is a major topic in Sexuality and Gender Studies, and to be blunt not a place for a religious debate. A separate section should be made for something like “Historical Religious Attitudes” where anyone who wants to get in to the details of attitudes in the Coptic Church towards gay polycules is welcome to without distracting from the core topic. 198.243.48.3 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]