Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously. Take it back to your thread in POC and you can yell at each other all you want. I think the historical question has been answered. Still though, you need to ask yourself regardless of which side of the debate you are on, what bearing do the attitudes of Romans 2,000 years ago have on the modern debate of same-sex marriage? Neither of you is proving anything, because what the Romans or Greeks thought about it simply isn't relevant to our society today. Given Nero's...eccentricities...I'm surprised we couldn't find sources talking about him marrying an elephant or hippo in a grand ceremony. That fact doesn't suddenly provide a support or condemnation of beastiality, it just tells us about Nero.
The entire concept of modern marriage and divorce would be totally foreign to ancient civilizations. The idea of marrying for "love" is a modern concept that is less then 200 years old.
Seriously. Take it back to your thread in POC and you can yell at each other all you want. I think the historical question has been answered. Still though, you need to ask yourself regardless of which side of the debate you are on, what bearing do the attitudes of Romans 2,000 years ago have on the modern debate of same-sex marriage? Neither of you is proving anything, because what the Romans or Greeks thought about it simply isn't relevant to our society today. Given Nero's...eccentricities...I'm surprised we couldn't find sources talking about him marrying an elephant or hippo in a grand ceremony. That fact doesn't suddenly provide a support or condemnation of beastiality, it just tells us about Nero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatDJohns
The entire concept of modern marriage and divorce would be totally foreign to ancient civilizations. The idea of marrying for "love" is a modern concept that is less then 200 years old.
I agree, but I find it hard to allow someone like rebel to post his version of history regardless of actual facts and documented history. It's like watching ancient aliens and taking it seriously.
I agree, but I find it hard to allow someone like rebel to post his version of history regardless of actual facts and documented history. It's like watching ancient aliens and taking it seriously.
A big part of the problem in attempting to source 'points' for these debates from what is basically ancient history is that there is a good deal of interpretation that goes into it.
For instance, in the case of Nero's same-sex weddings. One can take that to be a proof that such a practice existed, or it can simply be viewed as Nero being perverted and flying in the face of tradition. FWIW raison, you don't want to rest your argument on the example of Nero. I think it's pretty clear that the people who wrote of it did so with disgust because it was well outside the norm of Roman society. Nero is pretty much the poster child for Imperial Roman decadence and debauchery. Also, as the emperor he could do whatever he darn well pleased and he often did. The example of what Nero did doesn't mean that the same could be applied to any other citizen or that it was a common practice. My reading of it leads me to believe it was not a common thing at all. With that said, it is a valid historical record that such a thing took place, no matter what the view of it was at the time.
In the case of the Bible and other writings in ancient languages, a lot of it comes down to the translations and interpretations of the words used. This is an area where there is far less historical agreement then there is over the general Roman view of homosexuality and marriage. The issue with the religious texts is that they are religious, hence sacred to some people and they consider it rather absolute. In the case of many of the Bible passages regarding homosexuality, you have one side composed of theologians arguing one thing while you have more secular researchers arguing another and sometimes you come across people supporting the side they shouldn't be on. At the very least we can agree there isn't a total consensus, outside of religious dogma, over what those words mean or imply.
Then you get into the issue of context. Many writings, customs and practices are very much tied to the era they were in. People on both sides of the debates spend a lot of time taking things out of context. Whether it is Boswell twisting brotherhood ceremonies into being somewhat analogous to same-sex marriages or people quoting Biblical prohibitions without understanding the context the author is writing in as it relates to things like temple prostitution and eunuchs.
At the end of the day, people will find whatever 'proof' they are looking for in the historical record because they start out looking for it from a biased position. This is why, as much as I love history and think it can help us understand a lot of things, I don't think it is a good place to go looking (especially in ancient history) for answers to modern social questions and issues. If someone needs to quote Roman tradition or Biblical verse to support their position on a decidedly secular modern issue, then they are really reaching. In that sense, I think both of you are 'mistaken' in the basis of your argument.
Listen here chap, you haven't proven anything I said wrong. To prove it wrong you would need to provide evidence and you haven't.
Yes, to take the "feminine" role was disgusting but to be on the masculine side was not, by masculine side I mean the one entering into. Roman laws on marriage said nothing about homosexual marriage. It's didn't say it was illegal, it generally wasn't accepted.
Roman law specifically restricted marriage to between Roman citizen male and Roman citizen female.
There was no other legal marriage in Rome.
Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[117] Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[118] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...e#Gay_marriage
The reported same sex marriages were simply a satire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
However, homosexual marriage was performed among friends.
Can you give an example of such marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
It doesn't matter what the circumstances were, they got married to other men, that is a same-sex marriage.
Two emperors generally considered crazy: Nero and Elagabalus.... LOL What great examples of gay marriage
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Are you daft? Hostile source are still recognized as sources. It's called perspective and when it comes to recording accurate history, perspective from even hostile sources is valuable.
Not really. Hostile sources often report events specifically to portray the object in less favorable light. Entering a gay marriage was definitely such a negative light in ancient Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Oh so now you want socially approved gay marriage... Sorry slick you asked for a documented same-sex marriage.
Two crazy Roman emperors, one crazy enough to burn Rome and kill his mother among other things and other so crazy his own guard killed him at age of 18. Wow. I am convinced now LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
So, your lesson for today is that accurate historians document all sources of a period, even if that source is hostile, because perspective is needed to have accurate accounts of history.
My lesson today is that American schools in general do terrible jobs teaching history and logical reasoning. LOL
A big part of the problem in attempting to source 'points' for these debates from what is basically ancient history is that there is a good deal of interpretation that goes into it.
For instance, in the case of Nero's same-sex weddings. One can take that to be a proof that such a practice existed, or it can simply be viewed as Nero being perverted and flying in the face of tradition. FWIW raison, you don't want to rest your argument on the example of Nero. I think it's pretty clear that the people who wrote of it did so with disgust because it was well outside the norm of Roman society. Nero is pretty much the poster child for Imperial Roman decadence and debauchery. Also, as the emperor he could do whatever he darn well pleased and he often did. The example of what Nero did doesn't mean that the same could be applied to any other citizen or that it was a common practice. My reading of it leads me to believe it was not a common thing at all. With that said, it is a valid historical record that such a thing took place, no matter what the view of it was at the time.
It's like saying that horses were often chosen to be senators of Rome based on the famous incident with Caligula. Not to mention the fact that often such incidents were reported by hostile historians simply looking to further discredit the character of the person they described. It's a historical version of character assassination. Nevertheless, both Nero and Elagabalus are considered some of the craziest and most hated by the their contemporaries, Roman emperors.
I agree, but I find it hard to allow someone like rebel to post his version of history regardless of actual facts and documented history. It's like watching ancient aliens and taking it seriously.
"My version of history regardless of actual facts" (are there any other facts? )???
How many more times should we go over this:
To the best of our knowledge, based on Roman law restricting marriage to a male and female Roman citizen, based on lack of any gay historical reports of gay marriage or reports of same-sex married individuals we can safely say that there was no gay marriage in ancient Rome. Marriage at those days was reserved for a man and a women.
A big part of the problem in attempting to source 'points' for these debates from what is basically ancient history is that there is a good deal of interpretation that goes into it.
For instance, in the case of Nero's same-sex weddings. One can take that to be a proof that such a practice existed, or it can simply be viewed as Nero being perverted and flying in the face of tradition. FWIW raison, you don't want to rest your argument on the example of Nero. I think it's pretty clear that the people who wrote of it did so with disgust because it was well outside the norm of Roman society. Nero is pretty much the poster child for Imperial Roman decadence and debauchery. Also, as the emperor he could do whatever he darn well pleased and he often did. The example of what Nero did doesn't mean that the same could be applied to any other citizen or that it was a common practice. My reading of it leads me to believe it was not a common thing at all. With that said, it is a valid historical record that such a thing took place, no matter what the view of it was at the time.
In the case of the Bible and other writings in ancient languages, a lot of it comes down to the translations and interpretations of the words used. This is an area where there is far less historical agreement then there is over the general Roman view of homosexuality and marriage. The issue with the religious texts is that they are religious, hence sacred to some people and they consider it rather absolute. In the case of many of the Bible passages regarding homosexuality, you have one side composed of theologians arguing one thing while you have more secular researchers arguing another and sometimes you come across people supporting the side they shouldn't be on. At the very least we can agree there isn't a total consensus, outside of religious dogma, over what those words mean or imply.
Then you get into the issue of context. Many writings, customs and practices are very much tied to the era they were in. People on both sides of the debates spend a lot of time taking things out of context. Whether it is Boswell twisting brotherhood ceremonies into being somewhat analogous to same-sex marriages or people quoting Biblical prohibitions without understanding the context the author is writing in as it relates to things like temple prostitution and eunuchs.
At the end of the day, people will find whatever 'proof' they are looking for in the historical record because they start out looking for it from a biased position. This is why, as much as I love history and think it can help us understand a lot of things, I don't think it is a good place to go looking (especially in ancient history) for answers to modern social questions and issues. If someone needs to quote Roman tradition or Biblical verse to support their position on a decidedly secular modern issue, then they are really reaching. In that sense, I think both of you are 'mistaken' in the basis of your argument.
To be honest, I don't take anything in history as an example of what should be done today. What worked yesterday doesn't always work for today as each day we understand things a little more, we should make a point to at least. Rebel is playing a the game of tradition, I am merely playing along to point out that we should not go off what some believe to be ancient traditions. I could care less who was homosexual in history or today for that matter, I don't see anything wrong with it. He was dragging a thread off topic playing this game, so to bring to the proper forum I asked him to make this thread.
It is obvious when someone doesn't understand that the majority of what we "know" about history is mostly based on perspective and interpreted, as we learn more those interpretations change.
Well, since we all want a 'historical' discussion on the matter, why not look to our own history...
The Declaration of Indpendence:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Constitution of the United State of America:
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The First Amendment:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia:
Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,".... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
So, all men are created equal. We possess unalienable rights that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We formed a government under the consent of the people to essentially ensure the protection of these rights and the general welfare. We crafted a Bill of Rights to ensure the basic liberties of the people could not be infringed by that government. We established that we are a secular nation removed from the whims of religious interpretation in our governance. We passed a law that ensured that the various States of our nation must obey and respect the laws of the nation as a whole. That same law guaranteed that no one may be denied liberty without due process. Our Supreme Court has determined that marriage is among the basic civil rights of man and is among those unalienable liberties our government is pledged to defend and respect. The ultimate decision of a person in terms of whom they wish or do not wish to marry is recognized as an entirely individual choice and beyond control of the state.
Seriosuly folks, we don't need to invoke Rome if we want to prove something with tradition and juris prudence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
