Talk:Adelphopoiesis

message: This article could be improved with the inclusion of an image. There is a c. 7th Century image which, it has been suggested by Boswell et. al., shows the Adelphopoiesis of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. In other words, it may show marriage or something analogous to marriage - though this view is not uncontested.
Unfortunately, as a Novice Wikipedian, I have no no idea how to get an image into the article (my eyes really hurt after 8 solid hours of trying) and this image is found no where in Wikipedia Commons. Any guidance anyone? 
When I learn how to upload this image, which already exists on the Wikipedia entry for the aforementioned saints, I will do so, assuming that the author(s) of this article on Adelphopoiesis feel it's appropriate. Otherwise I won't.
Hail True Body 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Saints Sergius and Bacchus

message: Is there any historical accounts of this practice? There should surely be some writings about it. 
There seems to be very little amounting to the history -- not even a date range. All it is about is some bloke going on pedantically about the translation of the term. 
86.134.152.135 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Information

message: This now has a hostile against the hypothesis that it's analogues to same sex marriage. Changes like "historian" to "gay activist" is undermining language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.237.170 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "thesis" section is highly critical of Boswell's work, and doesn't even resemble a neutral tone. This section is really an extension of the "Criticism" section, and a proper "thesis" section needs to be written. I might be able to get to it next week (as this is something I actually know something about for once), but in the mean time, I'm going to stick a NPOV tag for the whole page, as it appears to have all been written with a strong anti-gay bias. --~WarrenSensei 13:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostile Tone 

message: Some gay activists, such as Peter Thatchell, have argued that John Henry Newman was gay because of his friendly relationship with Ambrose St. John. However, given Newman's resolute advocacy of Catholic clerical celibacy, it would certainly be more prudent to characterize this as a latter-day form of adelphopoiesis, just a spiritual relationship between two very Christian men. One could even argue that Newman was homophobic, since he held the pro-chastity epistles of St. Paul and other scriptures to be inerrant, and since he was quite likely a sacerdotal virgin, which in itself indicates a hostility to all forms of sex and related sins. ADM (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Henry Newman and Ambrose St. John

message: This article should be reorganized so that there is a general section at the top about the term and practice, followed by sections about the various scholarly opinions on the topic. At currently written, this article is really an article about one scholar's work on the subject. That is not a neutral discussion of the headword.
TraceySwans (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: done TMLutas (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disconnect general article on the term from Boswell's work 

message: This article is absurdly preoccupied with the WP:FRINGE opinion of a single author, to the extent that it has stopped being about the original topic.  All mention of Boswell and his theory should be limited to a single section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseshoes Jones (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massively undue weight 

message: The article includes:
"Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement."[11] in the Journal of Modern History: September 2007, argued that the ceremony of affrèrement in France joined unrelated same-gender couples in life long unions, who then could raise family, hold property jointly, and were in all respects the same as or equivalent to marriages in terms of law and social custom, as shown by parish records. These were not, however, contiguous with the earlier Eastern tradition, and not described in sexual terms in parallel to modern concepts of sexual identity."
While affrerement was literally "enbrotherment", this was a legal contract in France. It had absolutely nothing to do with Church ritual. This article is about "brother-making" as ritual in the East and West Church, a similarly named legal contract unrelated to religion doesn't really belong in it. It seems inserted into the article primary to make a point about same-sex unions but it doesn't contribute anything to the focus of the  section, which is the union in terms of church ritual.
Honestly, it doesn't really belong in this article and the info should be moved to a history of same-sex unions or legal history of same sex-unions type article.207.237.208.153 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tulchin seems to find it a related issue ( http://hnn.us/article/42361 ) and, as it was recorded in parish records, the church certainly at least recognized it.  Its a similar enough topic that mentioning it in this article does not seem particularly far-fetched.  Its not as if the entire article was rewritten to focus on it. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affrèrement  

message: The lead of this article asserts that adelphopoiesis was meant to “unite together two people of the same sex (normally men) in church-recognized friendship.” Primary sources, however, seem to indicate a completely different story; here’s an excerpt from the old Serbian epic poem Musić Stefan, as an example:
:Kad je bio čardaku na vrati,
:Kob ga kobi Stevanova ljuba,
:Zagrli ga, pa ga i poljubi:
:»Bogom brate, Vaistino slugo!
:»Višnjim Bogom i svetim Jovanom!
:»Do sad si mi verna sluga bio,
:»Od jako si Bogom pobratime,
:»Nemoj budit gospodara moga...
Here the titular Musić Stefan’s wife, a woman, refers to Stefan’s servant Vaistina, a man, as Bogom brate (brother by God) and pobratime (adelphos). Why the discrepancy between the historical source and the article? The statement in the lead doesn’t seem to be supported by any of the non-disputed scholarly citations below, either, for what it’s worth. Vorziblix (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahistorical claim? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adelphopoiesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610014027/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a poor Wikipedia article. In my opinion, the average reader looking for what adelphopoiesis actually is and its history will come away mystified by the reams of quotations and cross-referencing in the section on the controversy of its interpretation. (I'm not sure how to do the formatting for establishing consensus) but is it preferable to cut nearly all the discussion of the interpretation down into a single section entitled 'interpretation' with a brief outline of the major positions, well referenced, like any other article, or is there some other reason the nuts and bolts of the debate need to be presented for the general reader? I am asking because I am new and feel bad removing so much. Rainbow the Magpie (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the year 390 AD, homosexuality was declared illegal throughout the empire for any freeborn Roman, the punishment being burning alive. Given that the Roman/Byzantine emperor was considered 'God's Vicegerent on Earth' and one told a Pope, 'I am both priest and emperor', it is politically inconceivable that the church would conduct services to bless that which was a capital crime. Urselius (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preoccupied with controversy 

message: The paragraph in question begins "Boswell commented on the lack of any equivalent...." Pbritti believes that it is not properly cited and misrepresents the sources. Since it has been here for a while, I would like to see some discussion on how to improve the paragraph rather than just summarily remove it. Please discuss. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to ensure I responded and let you know I want to discuss this. However, I have been stuck-in on an offline matter for the last week and expect to be unavailable for a week more. If you are unable to respond after that point, please just give notice and we'll just defer to status quo ante to include this passage until we both have time. My apologies for this inconvenience and belated notice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication that this article is much more than a lot of original research. Appears that consensus is that much of the article ought to be removed as original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Properly cited and represented?