Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Legally married gay couples executed by Christians, subjected to "exquisite punishment"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:46 AM
Original message
Legally married gay couples executed by Christians, subjected to "exquisite punishment"
I am writing this post to show that some things never change. There are American Christians funding anti-gay initiatives in Africa that would allow gays to be executed. I know a lot of people don't like that but the truth is the right wing religions always have to have an enemy. Their bond is supposed to be love for their fellow man (as Christians) but love is not enough to keep these people together...they have to use hate. They have to have an enemy to fight. They have to rally around a leader who calls for the destruction of the people they don't like.

For your consideration: Gay marriage was legal in Ancient Rome. Two Emperors were married to men. Same-sex marriage was accepted from early Roman times until December 16, 342 AD when the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans outlawed it. They called for the registered gay couples to be executed and that was the beginning of the Christian church's pogrom against gays. (wikipedia has a great page about this)

Have things changed for the better? Yes. If the right wing Christians gain more power would they use that to start taking away the rights of gays? Yes. They have already started.

This battle is an old one...but I fear for my marriage if the Right continues to take over courts and the government.

Happy Good Friday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. The "church" is subject to changes. Reincarnation was an accepted fact until 555 A.D.
All of a sudden, people stopped coming back in a new body. Go figure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah, but these changes meant gay people were burned alive at the stake.
"In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. "And what ELSE do we burn?" --- "MORE witches!!!"
"Um,... wood?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Now you've done it, you've brought in the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! Thread explosion alert...
"O Lord, bless this thy Hand Grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu.. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. "Three shall be the number of the count and the number of the count shall be three."
"Not two, except as one progresses to three. And five is right out."

"One, two, FIVE"

"Three!"

"Three!" (boom)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dob Bole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. "Christian emperors" is the root of the problem
Constantine was a huge compromise that changed the public face of the church. The early church had nothing to do with the state, or the use of force in getting what they wanted. When people believed Constantine's story that God inexplicably wanted him to kill people, that changed Western Christianity forever.

There are basically two Christianities...the one of Jesus and the early church, and the European imperial state version, which has unfortunately been the religion of people with a microphone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. it's true, there are always fringe nuts supporting dreadful things
I have to say though that homosexuality in ancient Rome is far more complex than you make it out to be. And although it's wise to be vigilant, the acceptance of GLBT folks and marriage equality is growing swiftly- as Nate Silver pointed out in his analysis the other day. I see that trend being the dominant one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. How so is it more complicated?
I know different areas of the Roman Empire had different rules but overall Gay people were accepted until the Emperors adopted Christianity. I know of no law in Rome that called for the execution of gays until that happened.

It is a DU post and not an opus so my argument is simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm not saying there were people executed for homosexuality


though there may have been:

<snip>

The earliest formal record of legislation is Lex Scantinia, enacted in either 225 or 149 BC which regulated sexual behavior, including pederasty, adultery and passivity, and legislated the death penalty for same-sex behavior among free-born men<30> and there is evidence of punishments in earlier times. Above all, pederasty was condemned in the Republican era and dismissed as a sign of an effeminate Greek lifestyle.

In the mid Republic homosexual acts were widely accepted, if the active partner was a Roman, and the passive partner a slave or other non-Roman. Deviations from this pattern were morally condemned, but apparently had few legal consequences. Martial and Plautus describe a wide range of homosexual behaviors, in part to verbally abuse them like other minor standard deviations, but without too much moralizing. On the other hand, there is also from the year 108 an indictment against C. Vibius Maximus, a Roman officer in Egypt who had a sexual relationship with a young nobleman.

Juvenal condemned many forms of male homosexuality, and especially laments Roman men of high birth who show a moral front but secretly took the passive role, even if this was extremely rare. He found men who openly played the passive role pitiful but at least honest, and praised true love found by a man for a boy.<31> Public speeches usually condemned all forms of homosexuality. When Julius Caesar was ambassador to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, he was rumoured to have had a relationship with the king and played the passive role but, though this damaged his reputation, it apparently had no legal consequences.<32> The emperor Hadrian had a relationship with the younger Antinous, although this was also criticized but not significant enough to prevent him plunging the empire into mourning following Antinous' apparent death by drowning in 130.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Wise to be vigilant? You imply that equal rights are already law and need to be protected.
We don't have equal rights. My state is getting ready to pass a constitutional amendment against equal marriage, civil unions, and anything approximating equal partner rights.

Vigilant won't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. no, I'm not implying that- although I do live in a state
where equal rights are already law. I'm saying that the trend over the past couple of decades has been toward equal rights. I'm sorry you live in a place where your rights are trampled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. So do you. It's called the United States of America. There is no federal protection for gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. I was just reading some ancient greek papyri ...marriage contracts
and it was interesting to see that some of the marriage contracts from 300BC-200 BC actually mentioned that the husband agreed to have no mistresses, no other wives and no boys. My partner is taking classes in reading ancient Greek so the book was just lying here. Quite interesting to see how much society has changed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. yes. society has changed- and in many essential ways, for the better.
I'm sorry, but romanticizing the past is, well, not a particularly good idea. Women were not citizens in Ancient Greece. Slavery was an accepted part of the culture.

From Wiki:

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.<5> This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.<5>

and:

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greeks who engaged in passive homosexuality past the age at which they were the passive members of pederastic relationships "made a woman" of themselves; there is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium heaped upon them by their society.

but really, as my historian/anthropologist pa would have said, you really can't compare contemporary culture to ancient cultures from the vantage point of the contemporary mindset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. K&R for both GAY marriage and reincarnation -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. You don't have to go so far back as Rome. Even in North America
there are Native American tribes that had gay marriage. While Christianity wasn't the complete destroyer of Native American heritage and culture, they bear a huge part of the responsibility for it's destruction.

It's a damn shame that in so many cultures, gays and lesbians were accepted until Christianity (and other religions to be fair many of them share the same condemnation of homosexuality) came along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Organized religion is by definition authoritarian.
All modern organized religions are also patriarchal. Authoritarian and patriarchal. No equal rights for women or minorities of any kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
14. Those aren't Christians...
They are using the Lord's name in vain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. Religion Of Peace - just what is thy name, after all, Islam or Christianity?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
18. Which brings to mind the question
What did Kathy Reynolds do to the votes on the marriage amendment in Wisconsin in 2006 which passed 60-40%? It surely picked up a lot of extra votes in Waukesha county.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. who is a good DU sleuth? I want to know the answer to that too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
19. If god is so great and wonderful, I've often wondered why religious people are
Edited on Fri Apr-22-11 10:31 AM by RKP5637
often so violent and perpetuate acts of disgusting violence on others over and over. When someone tells me they are religious in my book that's a huge red flag to be cautions of them. Religion is just disgusting politics and dominance to me with brainwashed flocks.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. That is one of the saddest things!
There are truly good, sweet religious people who do good stuff ALL the time!!!! But these whack jobs who are always talking hate give them a bad name. I am starting to find myself prejudice against people who are religious as a knee-jerk reaction! And I don't like that...but that is what the glenn becks and michelle bachmans have done for religion in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. It is probably incorrect to understand various ancient sexual practices in modern terms:
eroticism can take quite different forms and can serve quite different psychological ends, depending on person, place, and time; individual personal pleasure may involve cultural understandings beyond simple physical enjoyment. Erotic activity can be used to release tension; erotic activity can be used to express care and affection; erotic activity can also be used to express contempt or to establish and maintain social inequalities. The possibilities are myriad

Here, for example, is a discussion of what was considered "proper" in ancient Greeki society:

... Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood ...
Homosexuality
First published Tue Aug 6, 2002; substantive revision Fri Feb 11, 2011
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

A similar notion of "propriety" (namely, that superiors penetrated inferiors and not vice-versa) seems to have been common in Rome -- and so it was already illegal, in the time of the Republic, to seduce a citizen's underage son; but beyond public disapproval, there seem to have been no further legal strictures until the Empire was collapsing. The Emperors, of course, were free to do more or less as they pleased, regardless of public opinion. Here is Suetonius on Nero:

... He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his home attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the courts and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time ...
Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html

One might, I suppose, call this an example of "homosexual marriage" in ancient Rome, but it is not "marriage" in any modern sense of the word, and it's certainly not what most of us mean when they speaking of "homosexual marriage." The story reflects an "erotic" view that is conditioned by the absolute power of the Emperor and the corresponding powerlessness of the slave child

We could, of course, debate endlessly about what "Christianity" really is -- but in the early Roman imperial era, people in Jerusalem and its surroundings generally disliked the Roman occupation, and they were enough of a headache to the Romans that the Romans finally destroyed the main city near the beginning of the Christian era. Even if you regard the Christian texts as mythology, the stories are informative about attitudes: the Christian god is born in filthy circumstances, socially almost illegitimate, and promptly becomes a refugee from state terror; this god associates with outcasts and has little interest in social conventions; finally, the religious and military authorities set out to murder the god. The texts also lay out a religious theory, according to which there is a high and immutable law, even more rigorous than the hundreds of ancient Judaic commandments ("Whoever looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart"), an entirely impossible standard for any human -- and then suggests that if anyone who hopes for mercy might begin with his or her own behavior ("Forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us"). The egalitarianism of the early church ("Neither Jew nor Greek, neither servant nor free, neither woman nor man: you are all one") drove it underground, since the ancient world could not tolerate such subversion, and the sect spread underground for several hundred years until the conversion of Constantine

Constantine II and Constans were the sons and successors of Constantine. Constans' edict against homosexuality offers some problems: Constans himself seems to have been openly homosexual, and so some commentators have suggested it was a joke. Constans' edict did not punish both male partners; it punished the passive male partner -- still consistent with traditional Greco-Roman notions of propriety, according to which the passive partner had lower social status. There is, of course, no question that the early church was quite suspicious of sex and taught that non-procreative sex was immoral; such views were later incorporated into Roman law, when the Empire was collapsing:

... With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century” ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. This christian finds it deplorable.
God is love and hate is what separates us from real peace. My friends in the faith and I look forward to a time when love wins over bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
22. Almost every day we read about another fundie christian leader molesting and raping children.
That speaks volumes about the unspeakably wicked consciousness of so many of these sociopathic freaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. The Christo-Fascists have turned Uganda into a theocratic hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-22-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. -^-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC