The Truth About Gay Marriage In Ancient Times. Did it Exist?

Is the idea of marriage between same sex attracted people a modern invention? Or was it something that people in the ancient past did do? As always, we'll try to respond to this question though a look at the sources.
Link to my previous episode about emperor Elagabalus
• Did Rome Have a Transg...
Link to my translation from Hebrew series
• The Truth About Biblic...
If you have any questions about this specific topic or in general the research for this video feel free to ask in the comment below. Thank you very much for watching and for your support.
#history #ancientrome #samesexwedding

[@csortof]

I found this channel about a week ago and I really appreciate Metatron not caring if he bumps a few shoulders when trying to state the truth. Usually when people try to make the same arguments Metatron does, they tend to do it from a very emotional point of view. They let their biases in and it ultimately does more damage than good. But Metatron tries his best to leave his biases at home and deliver the truth and its context in the truest way he knows.

[@DealwithitHand]

I think his more popular videos like the Biblical Accurate Angels video is a good gateway video to get skeptics or stubborns to listen out of interest. He should make more that trend like that one.

[@BrottenGuy]

Ehhhh…I don’t think he’s as careful as you would believe.

[@lukascermak4011]

​@BrottenGuy what do you mean by that?

[@mattjack3983]

​@BrottenGuy Yeah, what exactly do you mean when you say he's not "as careful" as the OP commenter may believe? Asking out ot genuine curiosity..not trying to be confrontational at all here..

[@ElderSnake90]

There's always someone saying he's not unbiased but never seem to give specifics. I think they are just contrarian for the sake of it.

[@AdirondackRuby]

This is another issue of seeing history and antiquity through modern eyes. Our words and concepts don't always align. We can find parallels and commonalities, but we won't ever know for sure if they interpreted that person/event/etc in the exact same way. Even within my lifetime the concept & definition of "Marriage" has changed repeatedly. What it entails, why it is done, how and where it is done.

[@SergioLeonardoCornejo]

One thing I found amusing Early in the video is that the two examples of acceptable passive behavior were low T level context. That is young males and elderly males. So it's ok to be passive if low t? Just kidding.

[@zzodysseuszz]

@@SergioLeonardoCornejomore effeminate the man the easier it is to pass off as not gay. But still very socially strenuous at best

[@TheOtherMwalimu]

agreed. just as anthropologists use cultural relativity to understand cultural phenomena from a certain culturally-based perspective, looking at history should also use a kind of "cultural relativity" or "historic relativity" as well. because, like you stated, culture's are both continuous and changing through time and space. viewing the past with modern lenses is no different than judging another culture based on your own customs.

[@reidycruise]

Nah I just hate the group thing not the individual but that’s not how wars are won

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

@@TheOtherMwalimuYup, we don't have to think at it with today's cultural and societal views, we have to look at what the people of the day thought about it.

[@Lillith.]

This is probably the most neutral take I have ever seen on this subject. There's evidence it did happen, but to say it was common or accepted would be a lie. I really appreciate that you approach subjects like this in every video I've seen from you. The historical sources are the centre and interpretations that are made and can be made are second. There's no way to say who's correct until we go back in time to see for ourselves.

[@metatronyt]

Thank you, I appreciate your comment since neutrality was indeed my main goal with this video.

[@user-wj1kg8qo3p]

It certainly doesn't seem uncommon. Then I suppouse it depends if you want see them or not see them at all.

[@peterfraser9070]

but to say it was common or accepted would be a lie./There's no way to say who's correct until we go back in time to see for ourselves.": And you just admitted you don't know it wasn't common and accepted so how can you say it's a "lie"?

[@sm5574]

Forcing a man to be castrated specifically because he looks like your dead _wife_ and you want to marry him, I think that's starting to get into some technicalities that make it a poor example to use by either side wishing to push an agenda.

[@twincast2005]

True, but it is one of the most high profile ones, so it would be bad history to ignore it, regardless of how deranged Nero was.

[@dragonsman4733]

​@@SashaTheDog Well we must remember that people are different, so I highly doubt there aren't some nutters in the community who think this was okay

[@SashaTheDog]

​@@dragonsman4733im in a discord group full of the most far left queers ever. None celebrate Nero

[@palarious]

Well, the dude who did it was nuts by all accounts and that was pretty par for the course for him.

[@Mutterschwein]

Again, there's also the possibility that Nero's political opponents who wrote about it was just trying to make him seem as deranged as they could lol

[@sjm9876]

I always appreciate your unbiased takes!

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate your comment

[@nowayjosedaniel]

His takes are absolutely biased. No one can deny this. What a dumb argument.

[@joemungus6063]

@@peacewarrecords you get what he means, no agenda is being pushed and only historical documents are being used.

[@oskarskalski2982]

​@@peacewarrecordsand he made it clear in one video that it is impossible to not be biased in any way. Although he also stated that he tried to minimise the bias as much as he can.

[@carboneagle]

​@@peacewarrecordsdon't be pedantic. It's clear the op isn't referring to (the unattainable) perfect lack of bias, but generally unbiased. If someone cleans your floor do you scream "it's not clean! There's surely a speck of dirt on it somewhere!"?

[@vainpride1351]

I really enjoy the videos you make that tackle modern day controversial topics from a historical context, Metatron. Keep up the great work!

[@SolProxy]

But are they really controversial?

[@vainpride1351]

@@SolProxy true, I should’ve put it like this, “so called, ‘Modern Day Controversial Topics’.”

[@johnnygreenface4195]

​@attekontu among particular weirdos, yes. 💀 many of them under this video

[@SolProxy]

@@johnnygreenface4195 I haven't seen many, must have gotten buried under all the positivity. Not sure if I even want to go looking since it might harm my brain.

[@jonfeuerborn5859]

@@SolProxy Yes.

[@StergiosMekras]

~10:20 Something to note regarding Nero's first slave "husband", the name "Δορυφορος" instead of "Πυθαγορας" may be because it is a nickname or descriptor. Metaphorically, the word means "satellite" or "follower" but literally/originally it meant "spear-carrier". ...well, someone was carrying someone's "spear" for sure... ~15:20 Given everything I know about "Αδελφοποιηση" from historical records, anecdotal evidence (even fairly recent such), and common sense... yeah, I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that while some probably used it to hide homosexual relationships, that wasn't the original/official purpose.

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

You know what daughter means, right?

[@rorschach775]

The tongue in cheek type behaviors always make me wonder how well these governments were able to actually enforce the laws. Did anyone actually care or is it like riding a bike without a helmet?

[@LogistiQbunnik]

@@rorschach775I would harbour a guess that many laws were like that yeah, just as they are today. Often people would ignore them, or just "not notice" or care about something, or only hint at it.

[@harperm1389]

Once again, thank you for this well-researched, thoughtful video. It can be astonishingly difficult to find sources that aren't biased in one direction or another (even subtly), *and* that have such a high level of academic rigor. Thank you for taking on these topics, and doing it with such grace.

[@metatronyt]

My very pleasure

[@PackHunter117]

Could you do a part two to this video and talk about the Persians, German and Celtic tribes, Chinese, Arabs under Islam, and both Dacian and Thracian tribes?

[@waseemaqrab8872]

Arabs were and will not be gay

[@visperad541]

I think celtic mythology has references to homosexuality in a nonchalant way, but I'm not sure. I too would like a video like this.

[@jbrennan381]

I think it would hard to get good info on the Celts simply because they followed a pretty strict oral tradition.

[@BlueEyedMomof378]

You don't need to look at Arab's under Islam in history to know exactly where they stand on homosexuality. If you ask any Muslim if Islam has charged, they'll tell you the Quran hasn't changed at all since it's writing. Therefore, it's easy to deduce that Islam, which is political in it's very nature, was extremely against homosexuality. They're still throwing gays off buildings in 2024 for God sake. I sincerely doubt much has changed. The rest though? I'd love to see him do a deep dive in any of them that have written texts. As someone else mentioned Celts were a very oral history centered people. Then again, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no reference in artwork.

[@xandrecarnes9888]

The Persians aren't gay in Zoroastrianism it a sin things are holy book label it as a form of demon worship.

[@gamera5160]

I don't consider Gilgamesh and Enkidu to be romantically involved with each other. Sex was not a taboo subject and Shamhat is described as bedding Enkidu, but there's no description of any physical intimacy between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. They were really intensely close, and Gilgamesh was willing to literally go to the ends of the world to save Enkidu, but the text does not explicitly describe a homosexual relationship. Edit: People are arguing about whether Shamhat slept with Enkidu for some reason. I posted the quote below and I'll post it again here: "That is he, Shamhat! Release your clenched arms, expose your sex so he can take in your voluptuousness. Do not be restrained--take his energy! When he sees you he will draw near to you. Spread out your robe so he can lie upon you, and perform for this primitive the task of womankind! His animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will become alien to him, and his lust will groan over you."

[@indieWellie]

it says more about the people presupposing or projecting homoeroticism than it does about the people/figures they refer to.

[@michelguevara151]

agreed, I have studied gilgamesh for over 40 years and there is no homosexual indication at all, gilgamesh loves enki because he is his physical match, he looks like a 'wild' version of him and is just as strong, it was the fight that neither could win that makes them close. I'd be close to a dude I couldn't best in a fight too, if I were a demigod, which gilgamesh is, three parents and all!

[@jameshart2622]

I was wondering about that. To put it mildly, Wikipedia authors as a group would not _hesitate_ to be explicit about the text saying they became lovers. No, not at all. Yet when I read the article recently, it just...said what the original comment said. They became brothers. What a terrible mess we have made of our culture and knowledge. It's never not been a mess, I guess, but still.

[@farkasmactavish]

​@@jameshart2622Why is homosexuality a "mess" to you?

[@jameshart2622]

@@farkasmactavish It's our understanding of history and human behavior and sexuality that's a mess. Good troll bait though.

[@JamesClark-uj1oh]

Babe wake up, Metatron just posted

[@reidycruise]

I was crazy once x

[@johnqpublic2718]

If by "babe" you're referring to a body pillow.

[@JamesClark-uj1oh]

@@johnqpublic2718 Both, both is good.

[@rockstar450]

​@johnqpublic2718 my body pillow is a social construct - in fact the Ancient Greeks had entire cities dedicated to gender queer citizens and their straw dummy lovers

[@TheCoon1975]

Cringe

[@nattravn8445]

I once again have to do a mini rant as I did on the supposed "trans-emperor" (yeah, I'm the very same guy) . To start with, I'm a married homosexual man, to another man. What confuses me is the "need" to insert modern phenomena such as me being able to marry into times and places centuries if not millennia ago . My critic is that we need to understand that "love" and "marriage" combined is a fairly new concept that wasn't really considered a necessity until the romantic period , and even back then it was probably seen more as a plus but not necessarily. I see no need to justify my modern luxury by history, what matters to me and my husband is that I can do this within my life. And no offense, but behaviors of the very top of the societies back then is hardly a good example. After all that would be as useful as to defend a marriage between a child and a fully adult because historically it was done by the nobility . I would appreciate if historians would have a more sober approach and less politicizing agenda regarding these subjects. So thank you so much, Metatron, for actually doing a great job in this. I'm so sick and tired of my life,love and sexuality being used as a weapon from activists and academics to legitimize something that doesn't need legitimizing from history but only from the people that I care getting it from. Namely my family, friends and the law in the country I'm living in. We need more actual research and less wishful thinking. Thank you so much Metatron for the pleasure that is unbiased and factual information about history.

[@metatronyt]

Absolutely! Thank you for watching and commenting I appreciate your open mind.

[@nattravn8445]

@@metatronyt as I appreciate yours!

[@kellharris2491]

It's not exactly true that marriage for love is a new concept. Or even a rare concept. Although arranged was common so was people liking each other and getting permission by family to marry. We make all of history and societal norms the absolute when they never were.Frankly marriage as recorded by the church is more new then anything. Common law was more common and there was many common law relations throughout history as well.

[@Husky92223]

I was making a comic about some ancient Greece HYPOTHETICAL lgbt figures and some readers were kinda shocked that homosexuality wasn't well accepted back then like i represented, which made me understand that there's a huge misconception about homosexuality in ancient times, specially Greece... many think it was well received and there was gay marriage lol

[@OklahomaBoomer]

Just because it happened doesn’t it was “widespread” or that it was accepted at all.

[@KRIMZONMEKANISM]

can you give us a link? :)

[@Husky92223]

@@OklahomaBoomer RIGHT??? There were even specific rules about straight relationships to be accepted, imagine homosexual ones

[@secretname2670]

@@OklahomaBoomer 💀💀 imagine 100 years from now on everyone will think that we as a society were all pedophiles because of all the accusations happening on social media 💀💀

[@badder9525]

@@secretname2670 So thankful the far distant future will not have practical evidences of our online perversions omg ahahah

[@steveblackwe11]

It is wonderful to have a presentation that is both scholarly and accessible to a lay person. So many presentations on the web lack references or rely on scholars who sit on the fringe. Metatron clearly acknowledges when a scholar is in the minority and speaks, not from his own thoughts or beliefs but from ancient texts where again, he makes it clear that they are open to interpretation. Excellent work.

[@metatronyt]

Thank you sir

[@MattieK09]

Metatron “if you have bros, you’re gay” No bias

[@metatronyt]

@@MattieK09 when did I say that?

[@metatronyt]

You are clearly very misinformed. Watch my video on homosexuality in ancient Greece and see who you are talking about. I just say what the data says.

[@dhrevrogers]

Once again, you've provided well-researched information. I would like to request that you provide text on the screen for names and technical labels. While I'm trying to improve my aural abilities in the spoken languages and extrapolate the textual spelling for written communication, it would be helpful to see the words spelled out while I listen. Thank you for considering.

[@papapatq]

I have followed this channel for a couple of years now. Always excellent history based content! Thank you so much!!!

[@amandaredd3057]

The fact that you go off facts alone is why I come back to your channel. I have the upmost respect for that and for you, sir ❤

[@metatronyt]

Thank you, I appreciate

[@ThyCorylus]

One needs to tread carefully when interpreting original texts. The cultural context is often impossible to understand given the availability of coexistent sources and the passage of millennia. Additionally, we have a tendency to flippantly interpolate vastly different cultural norms by referencing say, classical Greek sources, with Akkadian to extrapolate cultural perspectives on whatever the given subject may be. Context is everything and often hard to understand with few sources.

[@krono5el]

unless people still speak that same exact language : P

[@SRBOMBONICA86]

​@@krono5elno one speaks those languages

[@AntediluvianRomance]

​@@krono5el And even that wouldn't always help as we see on more or less contemporary material.

[@ramesses8887]

I remember my Grandmother saying to me, "I don't care what they tell you in school, Gilgamesh was Gay!"

[@johnwallis2100]

This comment should be pinned. This is the most conclusive evidence we have on the matter.

[@user-ho9ui6wc2d]

She’s right

[@julioflavioosti371]

Look what Gilgamesh mother says about Enkidu: "There will come to you a mighty man, a comrade who saves his friend-- he is the mightiest in the land, he is strongest, his strength is mighty as a rock from the sky! Like a wife you’ll love him, caress him and embrace him…"" Why describe their love as like a husband and a wife, and not just a brotherly one ? The strong homoerotic undertones in this pasage is obvious.

[@psier11]

@@julioflavioosti371 Or that tells us of the Akkadians habits!

[@vanillabatcave5677]

@@julioflavioosti371 because different cultures have different views on love, comparing it to marriage while strange to the modern westerner may not have had such undertones during the time.

[@EmperorCaligula_EC]

As both historian and gay man I was, I admit, a bit hesitant. Would I want to know? What would knowing either way do to me. Yet, you have navigated the evidence and theories admirably. Thanks.

[@nickkorkodylas5005]

As a historian and a gay man may I ask your educated opinion on this? if Achilles and Patroclus were a gay couple then why did the previous avenge the later's death by dragging Hector (stated as Troy's most handsome man) with a chariot instead of anally raping him to death?

[@sirbig8292]

Just see it as how much humanity has evolved.

[@SarastistheSerpent]

@@nickkorkodylas5005Achilles and Patroclus were only interpreted as a gay couple by Plato. There’s nothing in the actual Iliad that depicts them as lovers. If you want an example of a Greek demigod who had male lovers look no further than Heracles. He had DOZENS of male _and_ female lovers and they are very explicitly depicted. Heracles was known to get around lol, and was adored romantically/sexually by both men and women.

[@Rynewulf]

@@SarastistheSerpentare the expanded Trojan War epics post Homer usually credited with coupling Achilles and Patroclus? Theres a bunch of ancient commentary from ones from the Classical and Hellenistic age, so even if the original author/authors didnt perceive them as a gay couple even the ancients put them up as a likely set of lads within just a few centuries

[@Der.Soldat]

​​​​​@@nickkorkodylas5005 as someone else said, Plato did see them that way but not everyone else did. However, contemporary accounts from ancient Greece can be found which agree with his interpretation. Some speak of a dynamic between the two characters remeniscent of the eromenos/erastes (again, something Plato liked to talk about). I suppose it's up to the reader's interpretation. For gay relationships in Greek mythology widely recognised at the time, look no further than Apollo and Hyacinth, or Phaeton and Cygnus.

[@Serioussamurai500]

Rafa prayers for you're mother . And thank you for being unbiased on topics.

[@reecemccullough4829]

Love this channel. Thanks Metatron, really encouraging my like for ancient cultures

[@milliondollartrooper]

Thanks for making a video about this topic🙏🏻continue to spread your wings Metatron⭐️

[@alanhyland5697]

There you go again @Metatron. Avoiding the controversial topics, as usual. Keep up the good work, Raphael. I've learned a great deal about history in general from your channel.

[@oskarskalski2982]

Your comment is a bit weird for me. How is he avoiding controversial topic?

[@Drako9823]

@oskarskalski2982 It is sarcasm

[@hansdevriesvonmengden3639]

@@oskarskalski2982 I assume he meant to write the opposite

[@Goldenleyend]

About the adelphopoiesis, while it is possible that is was used as a disguise for homosexual marriage, I dont like how 2 men having a close relationship is always pointed as being sexual in nature.

[@crose1466]

Oh, Achilles cried when his best friend died? Guess he's gay then. Yeah, the same culture that shames straight men for not being emotional and caring for their friends is the same one calling them gay for doing it.

[@ibrahimihsan2090]

That isn't the point. The point was that some could exploit that to disguise sexual relations. There are cases of this. Yes, strong bonds between men that have nothing to do with sex are normal but some people did use that as an excuse for sexual relations.

[@topsuperseven7910]

@@ibrahimihsan2090 He starts by telling you that it's possible someone can use that to disguise sexual relations and you reply "Ya but you missed the point, it's possible it could be used to disguise sexual relations!". are you okay? in the head?

[@ibrahimihsan2090]

@@topsuperseven7910 I was replying to his dislike of portraying same sex close friendships in a sexual manner which I 100% agreed with. I just pointed that sadly some men and women didn't really have such ties for friendship reasons.

[@topsuperseven7910]

i don't like it either and we're living in a strange time when everyone needs to suspect homosexuality has to be at play anywhere best friends are found. They read this into nearly any historical documentation.

[@davidnavarro4821]

Finally a video that doesn’t start by « this video is brought to you by » ! You did a very interesting video and approach the topic with an open mind. You mention Plato, what’s interesting is that in his book _Laws_ he explicitly advocates to *prohibit* homosexual relationships for both sexes, as he describes them as counter-natural.

[@_aullik]

I don't have a problem with sponsored videos. YTers need an income too. My problem is with "Part of this video is sponsored" which is clearly BS.

[@cyrusfreeman9972]

RAID SHADOW LEGENDS!!!!

[@_aullik]

@@cyrusfreeman9972 ok, thats shady Advertisement. Fuck that.

[@DavidChoiniere]

KZbinrs reserve an income but perhaps some overdo their sponsors

[@_aullik]

@@DavidChoiniere Agree. I think some do it incorrectly with some real shady BS (like raid). As for too much im not sure. I think one per video is a fair amount.

[@AgsNfz]

So refreshing to see a balanced and honest exposition on a topic, this is my first time watching your content and I'll be sure to check out more.

[@mbburke3780]

Thank you for bringing history to the masses ! ❤🌏

[@deb9711]

Another brilliant video, Thankyou. I hope your mum is doing well and isnt having too hard a time with treatment ❤🙏

[@MiaobuMiao]

Very informative, brother. Thank you for keeping it real with us.

[@emgee691]

Hi there Metatron , from Australia. I've started to read and enjoy your various historical and academic presentations. Thank you for all the detailed and thorough work you put into this.

[@nazarnovitsky9868]

Thanks for the new video , Metatron ! 😊 👍🏻👍🏻

[@JaelaOrdo]

It’s a good start to a new week when my second favorite Sicilian posts a new video debunking modern discourse on ancient history 👍🏾

[@WarriorMondenkind]

Who is your first favorite?

[@dailyqwikbytes]

@@WarriorMondenkind Vito (Andolini)Corleone I'd wager...

[@JaelaOrdo]

@@WarriorMondenkindmy husband

[@holzlastname1976]

I was going to ask the same thing❤

[@Nyctophora]

The best answer :) @@JaelaOrdo

[@teresamerkel7161]

I had assumed there was no mention of same sex marriages in the ancient world as I assumed marriage was seen as primarily for procreative purposes. I am fascinated to see I was mistaken. I am curious about ancient Asian cultures and Native American cultures as well. Thank you for you (and your team's) research on this topic.

[@faketheo3432]

Same here. I assumed marriage in acient times mostly existed for political, economical and social standing reasons.

[@tiglishnobody8750]

There are more than procreation as marriage is also mean for bond or alliance and it depend on what people as some people have not formal marriage at all

[@areume2]

In Japan, there were same-sex relationships and it wasn’t until Christianity where it was considered so taboo.

[@mitacestalia7532]

I think in China older dynasty, there's no same sex marriage because well, like you say, the purpose of marriage is to create heir and that's the reason they build harem. However, some Emperors had male lover. It's basically like saying: "Hey, we don't mind you take a male lover, just make sure you have heir and still do your job."

[@faketheo3432]

@@areume2 interesting, but the focus here is on marriage. a contractual unity between individuals and families by law

[@user-mk3nu3hd4o]

Wendigoon, Stephanie Soo and you are truly the people that I listen to to get over my night shifts easily, this is such an interesting conversation starter, thank you!

[@Nyctophora]

Thank you so much Metatron, that was a great presentation!

[@Grandwigg]

I fine it a bit odd, personally, how common it has become for people to define themselves and others based only on sexuality or physical appearance. The impression I get from this video is that, at least in the case discussed here, there were cases where it came to the front of discussions here and there, but was otherwise of less importance than things like profession or community role/impact. (Not trying to discount discrimination, just considering the comparative level of out societal import)

[@cmay7429]

I've read, in ancient Japanese culture, individual relationships were perceived as homo or heterosexual, but individuals were not (though I'm sure some certainly had proclivities). Honestly, that seems pretty sensible to me, especially in cultures where political marriages and children were so important.

[@fattiger6957]

The practice of sexual preference being an integral part of one's identity is very much a modern idea. Even in a culture where it was socially acceptable like the Classical world or pre-modern Japan, a man who preferred other men would not have called himself gay. The concept wouldn't have even made sense to him. He would say he enjoyed the act, but would have probably had a wife and sired children because it was socially expected of him and a duty to his family. In essence, sexuality would have been something people do rather than who they are.

[@davidsenra2495]

@fattiger But to be honest to the LGBTQ+ crowd, they were labeled, blamed and persecuted long before they themselves actually adopted a label. And I feel they did it out of self preservation (pretty much any persecuted crowd will try to band together as a form of self-support).

[@asdasdwrwe32-bh3gw]

@@fattiger6957 Were there any monogamous societies were this distinction was meaningful?

[@bavariancarenthusiast2722]

@@asdasdwrwe32-bh3gw no - you just did it and there was no reason to talk about in public

[@guadalupe1942]

Thank you for all you do to educate me.Hope all is well with you and your family.

[@rasputinofthrace]

After only recently discovering this channel, this is only the third video I have watched. However, I appreciate the factual approach taken in the video, strictly focusing on facts and all etc, and applaud thorough research. It is truly gold. It's like a public service at it's best.

[@Aquila476]

Hilariously enough, I was just doing some research on this! Thanks for the perfect timing Metatron 😂

[@metatronyt]

Anytime

[@jarskil8862]

May I ask what for is the research? College/uni stuff or for sake of curiosity? (:

[@Aquila476]

@jarskil8862 not for College or Uni, though im studying history at college and would love to do Classics at Uni! I was just curious about the topic since people nowadays love to portray the ancient world as LGBT friendly - even though it likely wasn't lol.

[@RationalistMH]

@@Aquila476 or perhaps the real agenda here is you projecting you homophobia onto the past as a means with which to justify your present beliefs? Cause for every pro gay activist there’s also the anti gay activist. Just something to keep in mind.

[@kevinmcqueenie7420]

The point you make about medieval times makes sense. I live in Japan and my friend was “adopted” by his older boyfriend so he could receive part of his estate when he dies. Not uncommon here where same sex marriage is still not legal. Plus ca change…

[@vanillabatcave5677]

very interesting, a bit weird (now he's dating his dad) but clever.

[@fillup901]

Good video brother. I hope you and your family are feeling better. We’re rooting for you! 🙏🙌

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate that

[@yesfredfredburger8008]

Your factual reporting is an affront to my preconceptions /s thanks for the science

[@nodrug2]

Excellent unbiased video, just stating the facts. Keep it up.

[@metatronyt]

I will thanks

[@fredo1070]

Nero married the most beautiful boy in Rome after castrating him, he also married a soldier. The Romans thought him mad.

[@dragonsman4733]

Judging by how he burned Rome, he definitely was, and wasn't the first Roman emperor to be absolutely insane, such as Caligula

[@donaldwesterhazy9333]

@@dragonsman4733 Nero's involvement, causing the fire, is disputed. The debate over Nero's actual responsibility for the fire remains a topic of historical discussion and interpretation.

[@KarlKapo]

Nero was based

[@Rynewulf]

And by definition if thats real, then yes Nero was a murdering maniac but prooving that gayness isnt some modern leftwing conspiracy like some people make it out to be is pretty much always step 1 when talking about the history of sexuality. Establishing it was even there at all, which is seemed to be otherwise it would never come up

[@dougjardine8545]

Very thoughtful and interesting survey. Thanks.

[@palarious]

On the Hittite example, did you inspect the source to make sure that gender neutral was not being employed for the slave? It is also possible that, in some societies, legal text uses the masculine for gender neutral parties (people as a whole) as well. Most sources I've found for Laws 34&36 simply translate them the same, which indicates that there are disagreements or ambiguity in the translation. It could simply be that the laws are forbidding the separation of a male slave from a woman he's been given or a female slave from the man she's been given. It would be odd to clarify homosexual marriage for slaves but not for freemen. I am not familiar with Hittite, but it could be an issue that could cause confusion....

[@JaredaSohn]

I was going to ask a similar question, thanks for wording your's better than I would have.

[@mechadoggy]

@@ibrahimihsan2090Yeah, I was confused by OP because the Hussites were a Protestant Christian denomination who were persecuted a lot, just like their founder Jan Huss who was burned at the stake for following and preaching a non-Catholic form of Christianity.

[@palarious]

@@ibrahimihsan2090 autocorrect strikes again

[@ibrahimihsan2090]

@@palarious Fine, I'll delete it.

[@palarious]

@@ibrahimihsan2090 lol no offense taken. I went and fixed it

[@SoilentBeef]

It would be great if you did a video on historical examples of women in the military and people's perceptions on it.

[@KierstenA-ue8mo]

Yeah they shouldn't be there or cops or firemen. And I am one.

[@stephenlight647]

Like every other possible combination of human experience, it happened, but it was extraordinarily rare and usually limited to leadership under a Queen. (Boudicca comes to mind as an example)

[@Metanoia000]

Yes, perfect video. I was looking for a reference regarding this topic. Fine work, sir and Godspeed 🙏

[@metatronyt]

Glad it was helpful!

[@consciousmist]

Very interesting video. Thank you for laying it all out in an easy to understand way.

[@brianmurphy4702]

Nice summary dive into the topic... it would also to know of a broader picture, e.g. Japan, China, India. Thank you for your work.

[@RavenOConnor]

Interesting rabbit holes of information here. Same-sex relationships have definitely been a taboo in terms of looking back at history - especially the ancient world. Although I have my own views on this subject matter (as I'm sure most people do, in some way or another), I appreciate your dedication to presenting everything as bias-free as possible, as well as being up front about the reliability (or potential lack thereof) of your sources used. Keep up the great work!

[@SarastistheSerpent]

I would actually say same sex relationships were much more taboo in the premodern world than the ancient world, at least in the west. It was much much more socially acceptable to be in a same sex relationship in ancient Egypt or Persia than in Italy during the Renaissance for example. The former was not considered taboo or of any real interest or significance, where the latter was a crime that could get you in a lot of trouble.

[@jenniferglenn14]

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us Metatron. Thank you for keeping it real 🙏🏼

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate that thanks

[@Alexander_Preuss]

Great video overall, seems well researched as always! One suggestion though, I had trouble keeping the names apart, sometimes I didn't know if you were talking about a writer or about someone written about. Especially during the Nero part, I got confused quickly because you said so many names relatively close together. Next time, could you maybe visualize the names or something? I admit, I don't have a great idea how to make it easier, I mainly wanted to give feedback ^^

[@issaikh]

I think one thing worth noting out of the many references regarding these ancient marriage laws is that they were specifically regarding men. It's important to keep in mind while studying these ancient societies that they're male-centric, where even places that had laws allowing women to divorce, they still did not fall into any sort of framework that we would understand marriage to be. Marriage was about the furtherance of a family line, and in all of the places discussed, those lines were explicitly passed down via male heirs. So even though some of these societies may have permitted male-male relationships, or at least not frowned on them to the point of publicly stoning them for it, they would not have had the same leniency for female-female relationships. So our current understanding of homosexual relationships and marriage just still don't fit into the mindset of someone from 2000 years ago. And that's fine! Understandings of human biology have advanced a lot just in the last 100 years, as well as legal frameworks for people to pass inheritance to those outside of their blood children. But it's still important to understand where we came from, honestly and without deception.

[@kellharris2491]

The thing is female and female relationships were almost never had as taboo as male relationships. A woman couldn't get another woman pregnant. So her 'value' didn't decrease. She wasn't a threat to a husbands reputation as a man. Female and female relationships were more invisible not because they didn't happen it was because they didn't matter in the larger state of affairs.

[@Jiub_SN]

@@kellharris2491yep, this and the fact that, frankly, women weren't very significant due to men always playing significant roles. When I say this I mean things like familial lines are through men etc. if you daughter is scissoring but your son is married it isn't as big of a deal as the other way around

[@_robustus_]

There is also the economic pressure against gay marriage. No children are produced where as in traditional marriage there usually are. This gives rise to dowry/bride price and inheritance customs. Put simply there is no alliance of families in gay marriage, so there is no money to be made. I can also surmise that the slave mentioned is more free than a libertus for this reason as society had different expectations for slaves, given their low social status. Gay marriage may have been considered as just something slaves did. I think it also should be mentioned that in most cultures access to women is far more regulated and restricted than any male/male institution. Daughters are for marriage to a member of a family to whom economic alliance is desired. Absent this a lot of men will find sex elsewhere.

[@maxmcgraw3571]

I just found your channel earlier today. I watch many channels for the purpose of research and useful information. Some I will save on a Playlist... and some I will not. However, It is not too often that I subscribe to any particular channel, nor do I typically comment. I wanted to let you know that after watching 5 of your presentations and also scimming over your Playlist of videos, I did, indeed, subscribe to your channel and I look forward to obtaining much research and information from you with an open mind. Well done my dear, Sir... Well Done! With gratitude and well wishes to you and your family, Max Armstrong

[@BSGA22]

Thanks for the video and I hope your family is doing well.

[@happyslapsgiving5421]

Grandissimo Raffaello. Sempre impeccabile. Un abbraccio.

[@catserver8577]

As always, a very thorough deep dive. One thing I think that many people seem to not understand is the difference between love and lust. People may have a physical attraction to certain types of people, including men attracted to men and women attracted to women. But I believe it's a much more emotionally complicated feeling to be "in love" or have familial love towards another, which transcends all other physical considerations. I guess my point is "people can't help who they fall in love with". Not without serious involvement of social norms and consequences. In some areas, this is important, such as underage, but even that in the past was not even a consideration. It should be, don't get me wrong, but it's a modern morality. So even if legally there was not a "ceremony" or binding contract between people of the same sex, there was at many times in the past also not one in heterosexual couples. Once "marriage" was even conceived of, if you said you were husband and wife, you were husband and wife.

[@lasagnasux4934]

Well, there's also the difference between love and infatuation, which is different from lust. Lust is sexual attraction, infatuation is a feeling of attraction that's romantic in nature, while love is a state of dedication to another.

[@catserver8577]

@@lasagnasux4934 Agree.

[@kellharris2491]

And I think a lot of people forget that it was also common in a tribe to basically blend a family. Instead of nuclear family they lived in blended families were there would be wife swapping between brothers or vice verse. Everyone raising the kids together everyone hoping to whoever without rules or laws. The whole one man and one woman wasn't always the way it was.

[@boaz08]

Not even a minute in and I think I came. What a way to start a video lol. Excited to watch the rest.

[@boaz08]

@@eduardmedrea1930 Lmao. Who isn't 😂

[@jimbob6490]

i am about to watch this and i am glad you are doing this as you are the only one i trust for historically accurate info

[@metatronyt]

Thank you for your trust

[@hyndscs]

Thank you ive been waiting on this video

[@deuswulf6193]

I would like to note that at least as far as the word "marriage" (matrimony) is concerned, its based on the root word "mater", implying motherhood. In that sense, that specific word is centered around the female's status as a mother or socially accepted role to be such.

[@thekaxmax]

marriage doesn't include 'mother' in its etymology, so you can't conflate 'marriage' and 'matrimony'. Also, they are not entirely the same meaning.

[@sckepticjesture]

@thekaxmax, just look for the word matrimony, it's just another word for saying marriage, or the state of being married

[@thekaxmax]

@@sckepticjesture That's why I said what I did, I did exactly that. The words don't have the same meaning. The fact some people use them the same way doesn't mean the meaning and origins are the same. Marriage doesn't assume any gender--and yes, 'any' not 'either'. A poly marriage is a marriage.

[@nowayjosedaniel]

You are wrong and you should know better bc tbis is the dumbest argument and transparently stupid logic...

[@deuswulf6193]

@@thekaxmax You are wrong. Marriage was to imply a state of mātrem, of motherhood. The English language pulls heavily from root words which, when combined, clearly state its meaning. Marriage, matrimony...etc all signify that it is gendered around the condition a female specifically is in. Remember, words are often gendered, and in many languages this is more apparent. Assuming we were to make it about the male, for example, we could say its "Parriage", or Patrimony. A matriarchy is ruled by a female, were as a patriarchy is by male. This understanding of the language does not suddenly go away with words like Marriage and Matrimony. From etymology online, around 1300 "matrimoine, "the married state, the relation of husband and wife, wedlock; the sacrament of marriage," from Old French matremoine "matrimony, marriage" and directly from Latin mātrimōnium "wedlock, marriage" (in plural "wives"), from mātrem (nominative māter) "mother" (see mother (n.1)) + -mōnium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition."

[@VicTheFigGuy]

I really enjoy your source-based and unbiased presentation. I absolutely respect your work

[@a.z7469]

Thanks for the heads up!

[@Fred-px5xu]

Metatron thank you for producing another brilliant video lecture on the subject.

[@metatronyt]

My pleasure

[@LocrianDorian]

Another excellent video. Very difficult to find accurate information on this kind of topic these days as modern historians and scientists are more concerned with not offending the LGBT+ community than facts.

[@NickSBailey]

I don't think LGBQT+ people are going to play down the hardship they've faced much more likely to have religious institutions complain about the idea of evidence for historical gay marriage

[@pedroivantaveraferreira3037]

Not just that but the opposite too, surrendering to modern Christian values. Two centuries of research are heavily stained by modern morality. I'm bi myself. I advocate for this, plain truth. I loved to say "Greeks invented democracy and philosophy and they were mostly bi, so y'all should learn with them and be more like me". Then I learned that things weren't as simple and the fact that there's no good romantic homo relationships between two gods prove the point. I still use this argument but only among fruitless crowds

[@MarkHobbes]

Believe it or not, but scientists were being "cancelled" just because they were researching some controversial "topics" about homosexuality, e.g. why there is a gay lisp (voice)? Some just get too triggered when science is trying to decipher stuff about homosexuality. It's like being homophobic for doing it so. 😅

[@robertaylor9218]

This was excellent work. I hope mom is doing better, or at least that treatment is going well and she is in good spirits.

[@Lefrog420Blazin]

Keep shining the Light brother. Peace be upon you and your family.

[@metatronyt]

Thank you

[@blamehypocrisy.4053]

Love your channel and it’s always nice hearing things stated as a fact and that’s all. Thank you for everything you do!

[@jmi967]

Not quite related, but when you mentioned how certain things were considered back then, I realized I had just looked up when people started marrying for love, and when marriage started and found that marriage for love pick up steam a couple hundred years ago and the oldest marriage on record was 4454 years ago (2350 BC).

[@Lukas-Trnka]

Marriage for love is actually a form of luxury. For 99 % of human existence, life was really difficult, and surviving next winter was uncertain (and in some places, it still is). Living alone wasn't a practical option. In times when people had to do most of things themselves, taking care of homestead was a two-person job. No wonder parents were heavily involved in choosing a spouse for their child. They wanted the best for their children’s future, while also being concerned about their own survival. With no pension system in place, having their son marry a girl who would inherit a field and have children capable of working on that field meant the parents wouldn't face starvation on some desolate road. As a society, we've overcome numerous obstacles to be really able to afford concepts like marriage for love. Interestingly, it didn't take long for people to completely forget the hardships. And so now, some look at history with an outrage that some things weren't always the norm.

[@xMORHUHNx]

Metatron is the reason why I can't stop thinking about ancient Rome

[@tommygriffith9594]

I respect the honesty and the hard work.

[@metatronyt]

Thanks 🙏🏻

[@wolfvonturmitz5652]

Go friend! Keep up the good work.

[@FactThis]

Hi Metatron, I have a clarification to make on the subject of Hittite marriage. The wording of the Hittite Laws varies slightly by translation. For example, the translation of laws 34 and 36 by Hittitologist Harry Hoffner is as follows: §34 If a male slave pays a brideprice for a woman and takes her as his wife, no-one shall free her from slavery. §36 If a slave pays a brideprice for a free young man and acquires him as a son-in-law, no-one shall free him from slavery. Note in this translation there is no instance of a man taking another man as his spouse. That would seem to be an anomaly in the translation you have used. It's also worth noting that the Hittite Laws have a number of rules pertaining to the property rights of husbands and wives, what occurs following divorce, the custody of children, and so on. In no instance is a husband and husband or male with male marriage mentioned in the Laws.

[@StarWarsomania]

Thank you

[@jroman33]

Thank you for your clarification

[@TheCellarGuardian]

Hi Metatron, a question about Gilgamesh & Enkidu: There's an interpolation by N.K. Sandars, done over erudite translations, of the Gilgamesh epic, and I could not find any indication of a sentimental/erotic dimension of the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Instead, the relationship appears (to my eyes) to be one of the most exquisite depictions of pure manly friendship. But in the video, you cite it giving a more homoerotic connotation. The question is: would you be so kind to give me precise references to back up your thesis?

[@StarWarsomania]

Uh no, no he would not. Because none exist. But for some reason everyone appear to be pole-vaulting over this fact. :)

[@Rynewulf]

@@StarWarsomaniain most translations they want to be wives to each other. Thats pretty clear cut not 'man only attracted to woman and only married woman' territory

[@julioflavioosti371]

@Rynewulf Agree. Look what Gilgamesh mother says about Enkidu: "There will come to you a mighty man, a comrade who saves his friend-- he is the mightiest in the land, he is strongest, his strength is mighty as a rock from the sky! Like a wife you’ll love him, caress him and embrace him…"" Why describe their love as like a husband and a wife, and not just a brotherly one ? The strong homoerotic undertones in this pasage is obvious.

[@TheCellarGuardian]

​@@julioflavioosti371 I can't find this passage, could you please give a precise reference (edition, page, verse number etc...)?

[@TheCellarGuardian]

​​​​@@julioflavioosti371I found references on wiki harvard edu. The "love as a woman" part of referred by Gilgamesh himself and is related to two objects he saw in two dreams, a meteorite and an axe. Then, his mother tells him that those objects represent a man. So, Gilgamesh says (paraphrase)"I dreamt of a meteorite, I loved it as a woman" and only then his mother says (paraphrase) "that object represents a man". So, it's not his mother telling "you'll love that man as a woman", but Gilgamesh reporting about a sensation in a dream. I understand that, even under this light, someone could feel some homoerotic untertones in the script. But honestly I don't think that such inference is correct at all. On the contrary, what I feel reading those passages is the pureness of a high sentiment, "love as a woman" seen as the strongest sentiment possible. Sentiment, nothing carnal... The Epic is not shy about sex, think about the "civilization" of Enkidu. So, if there were actually some homoerotic act between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, don't you think that would have been much more explicit, rather than being just a vague intuition for *some* *modern* readers?

[@SwitchFeathers]

This was a very interesting look at this topic, I had no idea about the Hitite's views on this subject previously. Glad to see it discussed in such a mature and informative manner!

[@metatronyt]

Goad to hear the video was helpful

[@jayjaylenar]

This video is amazing. Always get excited when I see a new video from Metatron. He is a very learned man and I love all of the subjects he teaches

[@metatronyt]

I'm glad to hear, thank you.

[@nelsonschneider5443]

I haven't read Gilgamesh in 20 years, but my recollection of the text doesn't imply sexual love between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Indeed, Enkidu is first "domesticated" from his primal wild-man state when Gilgamesh brings a Temple Prostitute to him for a freebie. If there was something carnal between the two, it would have made more sense for Gilgamesh to dominate and sexually subdue Enkidu personally.

[@Elba.Ginon93]

Agree, they were equals in might and we all know there has to be a fixed botom a bitch for the bull and neither of them were bitches, naybe because became super depressed when he died?

[@kellharris2491]

Not really. Getting your bro a girl for him to bang while you watch sounds hella gay to me. One thing about sex back then was there was a power dynamic in most cases. To be penetrated was to be seen as womanly and not Manly or equal. Enkidu was supposed to be his match in every way. So basically subduing sexually would not work. Yes they can wack off together. They can be each others life partner. But no anal on screen. I think sex wasn't really seen the same back then. In truth you don't need to really be straight or gay to have and enjoy sex. That may sound strange but sex isn't always just about attraction. Sometimes it's comfort. Or loneliness. Or just helping each other out. I think strictly defining someone as gay or straight or Bi doesn't always work. These same men would swear sacred Brotherhood and then share wives and promise to take care of each others families. They would go off on campaign fighting together. And when lonely 'comfort' each other. And they would come home to their shared wives. This was how many tribes worked having polyamorus households. It actually took some time before the connection of sex equals baby was truly understood. And even after raising babies was often done together by the tribe. Mothers would co-raise. So there was a lot of bed swapping in the ancient ancient world.

[@humainhuskymaine3173]

Excerpt from Andrew George translation, current leading of Gilgamesh research : Akkadian : arāmšuma kīma aššatim ahabbub ēlšu Translation : "vou will love him like a wife, and will caress and embrace him" (Gilgamesh's mom interpreted his dream about Enkidu) Akkadian explanation : Ahabbub/habubu : "embrace/caress", which means explicitly sexual, the same word that used on Enkidu and Shamhat intercourse, possibly the source of arabian word habibi (darling/lover). Assatim/assatum : wife, quite firm marriage title This is one of (admittedly) few proofs that Epic of Gilgamesh has homoerotic subtext. Still quite explicit compared to other "homoerotic" example like Achilles and Patroclus. I'll provide more example if you're interested As for sexual subdue, the lack of desire to subdue between them except on their first fight what makes Helle think that their relationship is not the example of "ancient homosexuality". The Epic emphases on their equality more than "lovers dynamic". In the same vein, both wants to call each other with the exact same title so they refused to call each other with names and prefer "my friend" (ibri). Only on dream segment words like wife, embrace (sexual) were used and after Enkidu died the word bride, mourning woman, and love (meaning both platonic and erotic = ramu) were used

[@Jiub_SN]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@humainhuskymaine3173embrace and caress are not commonly interpreted as meaning something sexual. Shamat and enkidu later explicitly have sex. The issue being calling enlist a wife more so then calling the act they would have together sex, wherein caressing and embracing are rarely used as descriptors for sex when laying with her for pleasure is more explicit. The issue arises with the enkidu wife thing, which is a debatable topic more so than the caressing thing. Their relationship is not homoerotic, the homosexual love is on the table, but it strongly depends on how you interpret assatim. Gilgamesh is dominating or Enkidu, so to describe a marriage like love rather than a blood brother love would make more sense in the context of their culture with Gilgamesh as the husband due to his domination of the relationship. And what a lot of people interpret as sexual interest today is in actuality more likely a warriors bond. Mythological speaking, these bonds are said to be among the strongest and some of that even carries over to modern fiction (and reality to an extent, though not as much in the rivals become brothers way). Honestly though, I'm no Gilgamesh expert, and I'd need to read a few scholarly reports on the matter to say for sure, but given I've never heard the explicit sexual attraction from you I don't think it's very likely that you or the man you're citing are accurate in your assumptions. As Metatron says, examine works of the past requires a greater cultural context to say what something means for certain, and I'm going off what I know about other cultures to make the assumptions I have, so I could be wrong basic lol

[@humainhuskymaine3173]

@@Jiub_SN There is a word for non-sexual embrace, "iṣṣabtū" that was used when Gilgamesh comforted crying Enkidu by affectionately embraces him (non-sexual). The passage could easily used "iṣṣabtū" but they explicitly used ahabbub/habubu (same cuneiform). "Hababu" in particular has a distinct sexual meaning. Andrew George, the current leading of Gilgamesh translation, mentions "hababu" as a word for motion involving sensuous physical contact (in lovemaking and of a snake sliding over someone). The same word is translated to "making love" in relation to Enkidu and Shamhat, making them have a clear sexual term. Interpreting "wife" as Gilgamesh dominating Enkidu in power struggle is not possible because more than anything the Epic tried its most to emphasize that they both are "equal". The passage that followed after that sentence is "aššum uš[ta]mahharu ittika", meaning “... so that I shall make him your equal” (Ninsun's word to Gilgamesh). The word "itti" there means "be equal";"be stand";"compete". The Epic is so adamant about this to the point that Sophus Helle hypothesized that the reason why Gilgamesh and Enkidu didn't clearly describe their bond is because "the love between social equals was an unusual thing in cuneiform cultures. The love between men and women was an inherently unequal affair, because men held a higher social rank, and the love between two men typically involved an asymmetrical relation of power, with the penetrator being automatically superior to the penetrated. The love between Gilgamesh and Enkidu does not conform to that pattern because they are equal in every way" They have couple and more sexual connotations between them, but the Epic seems hesitant to describe them as "lovers" in traditional sense with its tradition power dynamic that follow. They "ramū" (love, means both erotic and platonic) each other, they noticed and appreciated each other's "kuzbu" (sexual charm), but more than anything they treat each other as equal in strength. I am not denying warrior bond between them, but I don't see why warrior bond and romantic/sexual bond can't coexist. After all the same passage that declared Enkidu as Gilgamesh's equal also explicitly and undeniably used "aššatim" which makes it very interesting because the word exceptionally means as title for marriage terms. If that word is used with "belum" (means lord), "aššatim" can also be interpreted as husband. Perhaps Gilgamesh's era itself doesn't have any specific word for their bond (it's important to mention that their bond is not a norm even in their era, so this is not my agenda to normalize same-sex relationships but just grated that people ignored what the Epic blatantly shows because of their own bias). I recommend you to read Andrew George's "Epic of Gilgamesh Penguin Critical Edition" (that has Akkadian language on the side of English translation) with Jeremy Black's "A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian" side by side so you can confirm both the Akkadian language and its translation word to word. I think that's the neutralest way to read the Epic of Gilgamesh without personal bias from translator.

[@flintknapper]

I really liked how you handled this and learned a lot. My education on this was limited to - top good, bottom bad. I was surprised to hear that there were several legal codes that got close to a same sex legal union. As a queer guy I'm mostly just impressed by how detached and factual your presentation of the material is. I don't need to see myself in the heroes of history, nor do I need the past to be a gay utopia. If the past was great for queer people we wouldn't have so much work still ahead of us lol. There are no Alexander the Greats around so the world is decidedly less sexy, but this is still the safest time in history for us.

[@metatronyt]

Glad to be of help.

[@nickkorkodylas5005]

Y R Y GEH?

[@janetmackinnon3411]

Thank you. It is always a pleasure(and a mental stimulus) to watch your content. intersting to consider "marriage"" as an economic arrangerment.

[@itiz_me4942]

I keep sending my girl your vids now we both love your content 🎉 also i hope you and your family are doing better wish you the best

[@ReasonablySkeptic]

I LOVE this channel because I CAN GET FACTS! Not politics with a dash of bias, BUT FACTS! Whether i like those facts or not is irrelevant. What's important is THEY ARE TRUE SOURCED FACTS! Thank you for your almost *UNHEARD OF* service.

[@SarastistheSerpent]

Gay people are not “politics”. I wish people would stop politicizing other people’s identities. Identity politics kills.

[@matthewiskra771]

I wish we had more primary source documents on the subject. IIRC outside of The Metatron's areas of focus there might have been contractual same-sex marriages in Han Dynasty China and Classical Maya, but I don't have any source materials just me fallible memory right now.

[@teresamerkel7161]

I am curious about these societies as well.

[@mechadoggy]

“there might have been contractual same-sex marriages in Han Dynasty China” What?? No there weren’t. In all my years of researching my own culture’s history, I’ve never come across anything like what you describe.

[@Wow22109]

Hey Metatron, hope you are doing well. Please I am interested that you cover other topics such as the military and armor ones, miss them dearely

[@divvu1014]

Grazie, Nobiluomo. Molto apprezzato, come sempre d'altronde.

[@daviddrew3372]

History is not convenient. It isn’t what we WANT it to Be. It isn’t our fantasy. Just because we seek meaning and context for ourselves and thus romanticize the past or villainize and otherwise those of a different context does not change what has passed.

[@Kenjitsuka]

Great stuff! I can't understand why people now are against exploring this topic honestly. Denying the truth of the massive struggles so many gay people had to suffer through the ages is stomping on their suffering.

[@metatronyt]

I agree but apparently that makes us Homophobes in the minds of some people 🥱

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Yeah, and no matter what the result is, we win. If it was prosecuted and banned, we can celebrate that we managed to make it a totally normal thing in these days. It it was totally fine, we can celebrate the long history of it being a normal thing.

[@ericthompson3982]

Fascinating historical analysis. Thank you for sharing this.

[@metatronyt]

Only if the facts pointed that way. But they didn't and I have a moral obligation to always say what I believe to be the correct interpretation of history.

[@ericthompson3982]

@@metatronyt Well, I appreciate your acknowledgement that the records are incomplete and may not be conclusive. It's a very responsible way to examine the history, and I have tremendous respect for that. That said, those were records of which I had not previously been aware, and genuinely was educated by. Particularly the Hittite accounts, I was not aware of. That fascinated me.

[@LanguageBLOX1_Alt]

Please make a faith channel if you can and want to about your own faith and experiences, the little bit you gave us before was so enriching!

[@gamediverbr]

5:35 An important detail to know: in the original, does the word for “slave” have a genitive or something similar, or is it a genderless word defined by another (and in this case, if that word is present)? I hope my question made sense.

[@palarious]

That was my thought as well. On the Hittite example, gender neutral could have been employed for the slave. It is also possible that, in some societies, legal text uses the masculine for gender neutral parties (people as a whole) as well. Most sources I've found for Laws 34&36 simply translate them the same, which indicates that there are disagreements in the translation. It could simply be that the laws are forbidding the separation of a male slave from a woman he's been given or a female slave from the man she's been given. It would be odd to clarify homosexual marriage for slaves but not for freemen. I am not familiar with Hittite, but it could be a linguistic or legalese issue causing confusion....

[@johnnygreenface4195]

It would be similarly strange as homosexual marriage to allow a woman to give a dowry for marriage. At least to my understanding

[@akl2k7]

@@palarious Hittite, not Hussite. Hussites came from Germany (?). Hittites came from modern day turkey.

[@palarious]

@@akl2k7 autocorrect strikes again

[@akl2k7]

@palarious Gotcha. Interestingly enough, Hittite grammatical gender was different from other languages distantly related to it (including English and Spanish). It basically only had an animate-inanimate distinction. In other branches of Indo-European, the Animate gender changed into Masculine and Feminine. I think there may have been a specific suffix to indicate the Feminine in Hittite, though. You might be on to something.

[@xavariusquest4603]

The way that we conceive of marriage is fairly new to all of humanity. We still have vestiges of the old rites...dowry payments, celibacy and virginity rules, procreative/consummation rules for annulments.etc etc etc. Formally and publicly joining for nothing more than love is a manifestation of a world with sufficient excess for marriages to NOT BE STEEPED IN THE ACQUISITION OF POWER, MONEY, LAND ETC. So, on the scale of the totality of known human history, Gay marriage is about as new as hetero marriage...assuming the only measured characteristics are compatibility and true affection.

[@rickybobby5153]

Very well said

[@chcomes]

interesting and well researched. Thanks!

[@metatronyt]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@your-average-bruv]

I admire your content

[@twincast2005]

Excellent overview! 🫶 One more thing you could've mentioned, although it's fine to leave out, as I don't know of any record formally connecting the practice to legal rights, is that there were a number of shrines in the Greek and Roman world dedicated to mythical and/or historical male figures that were apparently very popular among homosexual couples to visit, which at least indicates seeking a blessing for their union by the gods, which fits the religious and social aspects of marriage, if not the law.

[@lukascermak4011]

Sounds interesting? What about your sources?

[@SarastistheSerpent]

I am an amateur scholar of Ancient Egyptian history, and I have some insight that might be helpful: 1. The ancient Egyptians technically did not have marriage, at least not as an institution that is in any way equivalent to the modern western concept. Men and women did normally form monogamous bonds and lived in nuclear families, but these were not clearly defined either legally or religiously. There is no word in the Egyptian language for marriage, there is no word meaning “married spouse/husband/wife”, and there was no ritual or ceremony that joined two people in any form of sexual/romantic/economic union. The closest thing to marriage in ancient Egypt were “divorce laws”, which allocated a single household’s property to the various occupants if said occupants were no longer living together. There were also laws against adultery, but in the context of ancient Egyptian romantic/sexual relationships, this could more accurately be translated to laws against infidelity. 2. The ancient Egyptians did not have any stigma against homosexual sexual relationships as far as we know, at least between men. While they did consider the receptive role in a sexual relationship to be the inferior (ie. a man being penetrated by another man would be considered inferior to the man who was doing the penetrating), there’s little evidence indicating this was a serious social taboo, and there are artistic reliefs in the valley of the kings depicting Egyptian soldiers having penetrative sex with each other. The Egyptians were also prolific legalists, and routinely compiled lists of sexual crimes and social taboos that have been found in various religious/legal documents. Gay sex was never included in any of these lists of sexual taboos/crimes. Gay sex is also included in the Osiris myth, between Horus and Set. Depending on the version of the myth Set either rapes Horus, or Horus seduces Set and they sleep together consensually. 3. A same gender couple could absolutely take the place of an opposite gender couple in religious or legal ceremonies. We know this because Hatshepsut did this with her daughter. When Hatshepsut became Pharaoh, she promoted her daughter to the position of “great royal wife”, and they are depicted together in a number of religious reliefs performing religious rituals in the exact manner a male Pharaoh and his spouse would. This was purely ceremonial however, as Hatshepsut was not in any way romantically/sexually involved with her daughter. The actual gender of the person taking on a religious position/role within a ceremony didn’t actually matter, which is why Hatshepsut was able to portray herself as a male King in art, and her daughter as her “wife”. 4. The Siwa Berbers in western Egypt have a gay male marriage custom that is ancient and traceable back to the Iron Age at least. This gay marriage custom actually survived up until quite recently. Beginning in the mid 20th century, and due at least in part to pressure from clerics funded by Saudi Arabia, the Egyptian government has worked very hard to suppress the practice. 5. Though technically unrelated to gay marriage, the Egyptians had 3 legal sexes/genders: tai, sekhet and hemet. Tai are men, hemet are women, but the exact definition of the sekhet gender is not known. Egyptian artistic practices might imply that sekhet can be loosely equated with the Greek and later Gnostic concept of an androgyne, but there are records implying that there were people who were raised as boys during childhood but lived as women as adults and took religious roles as women, possibly akin to the Indian Hijra.

[@aviadd]

Thanks! Very informative video

[@metatronyt]

You're welcome and thanks for watching

[@MrBradipo73]

Excellent video, really well-substantiated and balanced!

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate your comment thanks

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

Also less spoken about than Gilgamesh and Enkidu is Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra.

[@JaelaOrdo]

Temba, his arms wide

[@BearfootBob]

Shaka, when his ass broke.

[@antonyosborne5261]

With open arms, together, when the walls came down

[@samsmith2635]

Jalad reaching around whilst Darmok climaxed

[@bearonaromp7473]

Too cute guys!