How far is the 'Making of Brothers' similar to marriage?

Were these relationships the same as marriage?

No.

There have been cultures where marriage is not restricted to opposite sex couples, just as there are today. But the adelphopoiesis rite and the ordo ad fratres faciendum are not the same as the equivalent blessing for opposite sex couples, and they are not the same as the western European opposite sex marriage ceremony.

Were they equivalent to marriage?

It's the wrong question to ask. A relationship of two men would have more power and wealth, and a relationship of two women would have had less.

But that's not really the point.

The 'texture' or 'feel' of the relationship is different. For instance:

• these relationships seem to have originated in blood brotherhood, mutual adoption or possibly a pact of thieves or soldiers. More
  
  
• they were business partnerships. More
  
  
• they were monastic relationships. More
  
  
• the relationships were not necessarily monogamous. More
  
  
• the ceremonies bless a spiritual rather than a sexual union. More
  
  
• there is no suggestion that the couple was a 'gay couple' in the modern sense. More
  
  
• the relationships had separate legal force and pre-date Christianity. They are an institution of the state not the Christian Church. More
  
  
• it's an artificial kinship - not like marriage. More

None of these objections proves that the relationship was not a same-sex equivalent of heterosexual marriage. None of them is a valid on its own. The links from each one (above) explain why. But there is a sense of difference that comes through all this. The relationship of sworn brotherhood was diverse, and may have been more diverse than married relationships. The relationship of sworn kinship, blessed in the Church ceremonies, does have a different feel about it from marriage.

However, we do know that adelphopoiesis was used for a variety of purposes, including some of the above. For instance it was actually used to ensure inheritance, so that your wealth from your business was inherited by your partner. Also the ceremonies stress the loving nature of the relationship. And, from the present day, we know that adelphopoiesis is used today to unite gay couples.

So the question is whether people from the past, who we today would see as committed, loving, gay couples, were united by sworn kinship and their relationship was blessed by the Church.

This hangs on three issues.

• One is the evidence.
  
  
• The second is the strong belief of some that homosexuals cannot possibly form deep, enduring, loving relationships. And from this is must follow that the relationships sanctioned by the Church could not have been, what we today would call homosexual relationships.
  
  
• The third is the equally strong belief, often held by the same people, that the Church never sanctioned same-sex sexual activity, and that this is what same-sex relationships are all about. If one is convinced of this, then it follows that the Church could never have sanctioned these relationships for gay couples. - And neither would one examine this underlying belief in the light of real couples in real life.

So from here on, I list only the evidence that sworn kinship was commonly recognised, respected and was a deep, lasting and loving relationship between people of the same sex.

In his book The Friend, Alan Bray draws on an impressive array of examples to show that sworn kinship was widely recognised over many centuries. There are many clues here to show that a deep love exclusive to two people and their life-long commitment are described too often to ignore. Examples are being added to a the page on sworn kinship as a romantic relationship.