4 ms·

Presumably slavish dedication to historical accuracy. Although were there really no cultures in that era that allowed same sex marriage? I personally wouldn't

Presumably slavish dedication to historical accuracy. Although were there really no cultures in that era that allowed same sex marriage? I personally wouldn't want a seemingly historically accurate (ish) game to present the churches of the age as being okay with same sex marriage when they weren't. Although being able to toggle it on in the settings would be cool.

chaorace 6y ago
CKIII has several "fun" toggles for ahistoric behavior, so I'm not sure if this argument fits. For example: you can flip the default inheritence system to favor women or even make the majority of people homosexual. I'm guessing it's just more or less something they didn't get around to implementing. Perhaps they wanted to tackle it in a future patch or DLC (I can see this happening if turning this on somehow led to buggy behavior in other areas)
- p1necone 6y ago
  Yeah that's exactly what I'd want for marriage. I'm definitely more inclined to think this is just one of many features they didn't get around to adding rather than an intentional omission.
krapp 6y ago
>Although were there really no cultures in that era that allowed same sex marriage? No Christian cultures, obviously.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 6y ago
  Was there any historical culture in which same-sex marriage was common or accepted? I can’t think of one, Christian or otherwise (though I can think of a couple of examples of same-sex people got married by subterfuge).
  - michaelpb 6y ago
    Yep, many! Today's era is quit unusual in how few open gay and bisexual relationships are had by public officials (which are the unions that are typically best recorded). In many other historical periods across different regions, today's standards would be considered unusually heterosexual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    - xanth 6y ago
      Given that the game simulates 867 to 1453 it was much more of a rarity, don't get me wrong I'd love to have the feature but I'm glad they shipped core features of the historical simulation game and more than likely left it on the backlog.
      - michaelpb 6y ago
        Gay marriage was more common than you might think during that time period as well, even in Europe! I found a few interesting accounts, from this summary of an older book on the topic: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/when-marriage-between-gays-was-by-rite-1.181956 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/when-marriage-between-gay...
        notsureaboutpg 6y ago
        I think you have to reach really really far to say that pairing up two Christian saints who were really close with one another is the same as gay marriage circa 2010-2020. They would not have been recognized as husbands of each other in any legal way, by anyone outside the church, or in any official way. They wouldn't be able to jointly adopt any kids. They had all the rights two best friends have. Also, this is the Church, famous for metaphor. Being married to Christ isn't a gay marriage. Being paired with a Saint (in the service of God) isn't gay marriage either. Sure these ceremonies may have had similar rituals, but no one there would have understand that relationship as the same as one between husband and wife. Nowhere does the article say these unions licensed the two involved to have sex. And that they kissed in these ceremonies is not surprising. Kisses as a form of platonic affection and or greeting were common in the time period. The concept of gay marriage as we have it now is new and you really have to put your blinders on to see it any other way. Homosexual activity is old as human beings, but gay marriage is not
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Did Buddhist cultures allow same sex marriages in ancient times?
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  No Christian cultures, obviously. Interestingly, the vast majority of countries that now permit gay marriage have Christian histories.
  - curtainsforus 6y ago
    Ssh, we have to hate the cross-kissers.
omegaworks 6y ago
It's expressing a constraint that wasn't entirely set until the end of the period of time the game is set in, as the power of the nobility and church consolidate. It would be more interesting if it allowed you to play with some of the tensions between the church and the nobility. Want to marry your same-sex spouse? Throw your weight around a la King Henry VIII and establish your own church. https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholic-church-paid-little-attention-to-homosexuality-112830 https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholi...
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
To translate the concept of “marriage” between cultures is a fool's errand. — historical, and current cultures often had a variety of different concepts one could all call “marriage”. It is as though one attempt to translate the ranks of entirely different historical military structures. Though, such is also often done, such as the “Kings” of Rome which were elected and had a co-ruler. In any case, one might for instance argue that a male Japanese samurai in 1800 could be “bound” to both a male and a female at the same time, but only one of each, but only the latter union is traditionally translated as “marriage” for “reasons” even though the former comes no less close. In act, the former union was typically more so one of love, and the latter more so one of business.

chaorace 6y ago

CKIII has several "fun" toggles for ahistoric behavior, so I'm not sure if this argument fits. For example: you can flip the default inheritence system to favor women or even make the majority of people homosexual. I'm guessing it's just more or less something they didn't get around to implementing. Perhaps they wanted to tackle it in a future patch or DLC (I can see this happening if turning this on somehow led to buggy behavior in other areas)

p1necone 6y ago
Yeah that's exactly what I'd want for marriage. I'm definitely more inclined to think this is just one of many features they didn't get around to adding rather than an intentional omission.

krapp 6y ago

>Although were there really no cultures in that era that allowed same sex marriage? No Christian cultures, obviously.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 6y ago
Was there any historical culture in which same-sex marriage was common or accepted? I can’t think of one, Christian or otherwise (though I can think of a couple of examples of same-sex people got married by subterfuge).
- michaelpb 6y ago
  Yep, many! Today's era is quit unusual in how few open gay and bisexual relationships are had by public officials (which are the unions that are typically best recorded). In many other historical periods across different regions, today's standards would be considered unusually heterosexual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
  - xanth 6y ago
    Given that the game simulates 867 to 1453 it was much more of a rarity, don't get me wrong I'd love to have the feature but I'm glad they shipped core features of the historical simulation game and more than likely left it on the backlog.
    - michaelpb 6y ago
      Gay marriage was more common than you might think during that time period as well, even in Europe! I found a few interesting accounts, from this summary of an older book on the topic: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/when-marriage-between-gays-was-by-rite-1.181956 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/when-marriage-between-gay...
      - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
        I think you have to reach really really far to say that pairing up two Christian saints who were really close with one another is the same as gay marriage circa 2010-2020. They would not have been recognized as husbands of each other in any legal way, by anyone outside the church, or in any official way. They wouldn't be able to jointly adopt any kids. They had all the rights two best friends have. Also, this is the Church, famous for metaphor. Being married to Christ isn't a gay marriage. Being paired with a Saint (in the service of God) isn't gay marriage either. Sure these ceremonies may have had similar rituals, but no one there would have understand that relationship as the same as one between husband and wife. Nowhere does the article say these unions licensed the two involved to have sex. And that they kissed in these ceremonies is not surprising. Kisses as a form of platonic affection and or greeting were common in the time period. The concept of gay marriage as we have it now is new and you really have to put your blinders on to see it any other way. Homosexual activity is old as human beings, but gay marriage is not
ekianjo 6y ago
Did Buddhist cultures allow same sex marriages in ancient times?
goatinaboat 6y ago
No Christian cultures, obviously. Interestingly, the vast majority of countries that now permit gay marriage have Christian histories.
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  Ssh, we have to hate the cross-kissers.

omegaworks 6y ago

It's expressing a constraint that wasn't entirely set until the end of the period of time the game is set in, as the power of the nobility and church consolidate. It would be more interesting if it allowed you to play with some of the tensions between the church and the nobility. Want to marry your same-sex spouse? Throw your weight around a la King Henry VIII and establish your own church. https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholic-church-paid-little-attention-to-homosexuality-112830 https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholi...

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

To translate the concept of “marriage” between cultures is a fool's errand. — historical, and current cultures often had a variety of different concepts one could all call “marriage”. It is as though one attempt to translate the ranks of entirely different historical military structures. Though, such is also often done, such as the “Kings” of Rome which were elected and had a co-ruler. In any case, one might for instance argue that a male Japanese samurai in 1800 could be “bound” to both a male and a female at the same time, but only one of each, but only the latter union is traditionally translated as “marriage” for “reasons” even though the former comes no less close. In act, the former union was typically more so one of love, and the latter more so one of business.