Medieval attitudes towards homosexuality

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,653
San Diego
I don't want "evidence". I want sources. Sources that you are personally familiar with. This post is the equivalent of saying "go Google it", and that is NEVER an acceptable response on Historum.
You have used the two terms interchangeably.
here you go

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/04/amazing-photo-of-king-richard-iiis-tiny-curved-spine-proves-shakespeare-was-wrong/
Richard III skeleton reveals 'hunchback king'
The Mystery of Edward II’s Death - The History Vault
Roman Catholic Church child abuse in the Middle Ages
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,810
USA

:lol:

How do I know you didn't even read the "sources" you linked before posting?

"Everyone knows how Edward II died. He was murdered at Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire on 21 September 1327 by being held down and having a red-hot poker inserted inside his anus, and his screams could be heard miles away. This cruel torture was most probably devised as punishment for his presumed sexual acts with men. Right? Wrong. Edward II’s murder by red-hot poker is one of those things in history that most people think they know, but it melts away into almost nothing when you look at the evidence. In fact, it is very possible that Edward did not die in 1327 at all. "
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,653
San Diego
I have noted your attitude ... may I ask you if you know the Theodosian Code?
Yes-
Not sure which particular law you are referring to.
But again, my argument is about the fact that we do not outlaw things no one does.

All taboos concern behaviors that people still do- and how stringently any taboo is enforced varies over time.

As to my attitude.... that's an obscure reference- my attitude toward homosexuality in the past? Or my attitude toward unequal treatment?

I have literally read thousands of opinions and arguments posted on historum without citations nor demands for them.
 

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,890
Blachernai
Fact- a rumor about a red hot poker circulated regarding Edward II and his demise. His homosexuality was both forbidden by the church and yet tolerated.
Are you arguing that that is not true? That I made that up?

If not- then it is a well established fact.
What we want to know is what those sources are, who wrote them, why they might have had a reason to tell such a story, and their proximity to the event.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,199
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Yes-
Not sure which particular law you are referring to.
But again, my argument is about the fact that we do not outlaw things no one does.

All taboos concern behaviors that people still do- and how stringently any taboo is enforced varies over time.

As to my attitude.... that's an obscure reference- my attitude toward homosexuality in the past? Or my attitude toward unequal treatment?

I have literally read thousands of opinions and arguments posted on historum without citations nor demands for them.
So I can infer that you don't know the Theodosian Code [it's not a duty stated by law, so feel free to ignore it] and what happened when the Western Roman Empire fell and how the Germanic invaders decided to deal with Roman right. That code remained valid in the Eastern lands. This can makes it quite difficult for you to understand how in the West the matter developed ...
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,653
San Diego
:lol:

How do I know you didn't even read the "sources" you linked before posting?

"Everyone knows how Edward II died. He was murdered at Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire on 21 September 1327 by being held down and having a red-hot poker inserted inside his anus, and his screams could be heard miles away. This cruel torture was most probably devised as punishment for his presumed sexual acts with men. Right? Wrong. Edward II’s murder by red-hot poker is one of those things in history that most people think they know, but it melts away into almost nothing when you look at the evidence. In fact, it is very possible that Edward did not die in 1327 at all. "
Did you not read my argument? Or did you simply not understand it?

I was not arguing that he was killed by a red hot poker- I was pointing out that there was a widely circulated RUMOR that he was. And that that rumor was REVEALING about the attitude of medieval people toward homosexuality.
Whether he was or was not killed in that way is somewhat immaterial to the point I am making.
My original posts regarded the OPs original question.

Similarly- I pointed out Richard III- and the rumor that he was a hunchback- this was in support of the argument that rumors that start soon after someone's death, or in their life, are often founded in some level of truth, because people who were close to those rumored about often talk. This is to point out that Rumors- although derided- often turn out to have a truthful basis- though obviously exaggerated.

The rumor about edwards death- whether or not true, illustrates an attitude about homosexuality that delighted in the "punishment" of homosexuals. It also revealed a sense of humor regarding homosexuality.

That edward had sex with men is pretty much accepted as fact.
And I was pointing out that the RUMOR- focused entirely on how a wife might feel about her husband being gay- rather than the myriad other reason why she might want her husband out of the way.
This illustrates that Edward being fey was more a topic of conversation among the hoi polloi than were the intrigues of political power, because that was the story that was told.

so. once more- try and address what I actually argued.

That attitudes toward homosexuality in the medieval era were pretty much sniggering tolerance ( because it was not uncommon ) but public condemnation when it was overtly displayed.
And I illustrated that that attitude had not changed much by the time of Turing or Oscar Wilde.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,369
T'Republic of Yorkshire
@aggienation is quite right. You didn't read these links.

What exactly are the first three links supposed to have to do with homosexuality in the Middle Ages?

And the last one is the most telling. It is NOT talking about sexual abuse. It is about PHYSICAL abuse - beatings and punishment of children under Church care.

Try again.

And these aren't sources. You talked about "translating Roman letters". Well, we want to see your PRIMARY sources. A newspaper article is not a source.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,653
San Diego
So I can infer that you don't know the Theodosian Code [it's not a duty stated by law, so feel free to ignore it] and what happened when the Western Roman Empire fell and how the Germanic invaders decided to deal with Roman right. That code remained valid in the Eastern lands. This can makes it quite difficult for you to understand how in the West the matter developed ...
Claiming I don't understand is a great dodge when you make no argument.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,495
Netherlands
@aggienation is quite right. You didn't read these links.

What exactly are the first three links supposed to have to do with homosexuality in the Middle Ages?

And the last one is the most telling. It is NOT talking about sexual abuse. It is about PHYSICAL abuse - beatings and punishment of children under Church care.

Try again.

And these aren't sources. You talked about "translating Roman letters". Well, we want to see your PRIMARY sources. A newspaper article is not a source.
I have to look up the sources, but one of the accusations of William de Nogaret against pope Boniface was that he had mistresses to hide the fact that he was a sodomite. Mind you the mistresses weren't really an issue.
Also you might be interested in this Sodomy and the Knights Templar - Medievalists.net
 
Oct 2015
1,196
California
Similarly- I pointed out Richard III- and the rumor that he was a hunchback- this was in support of the argument that rumors that start soon after someone's death, or in their life, are often founded in some level of truth, because people who were close to those rumored about often talk. This is to point out that Rumors- although derided- often turn out to have a truthful basis- though obviously exaggerated.
Slightly out of topic regarding the op's question, but I'm sure everyone here know that the rumors regarding Richard III being a hunchback are no longer rumors but fact ever since they discovered his skeleton underneath a parking lot.