 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rufus
Goldfish
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: Homosexuality not accepted in ancient Rome |
 |
|
I found this statement on another thread:
"In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was perfectly accepted normal behavior."
I have heard this outside this forum as well. It is "false". Homosexuality was considered wrong by the ancient Romans. Let's start with the records of the Roman historian Suetonius who lived in the late first-early second century. In his "Twelve Caesars" he lists homosexuality as a folly and crime:
Gradually Nero's vices gained the upper hand...
Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him...and treated him as wife...
Some say that Nero did, in fact, commit incest with his mother Agrippina...
Nero practised every kind of obscenity...
Nero's freedman Doryphorus then married Nero just as he himself married Sporus. And on the wedding night Nero imitated the moans of a girl being deflowered.
Suetonius, Twelve Caesars 6.27-29
Suetonius was not a Jew or a Christian and lists this homosexual behavior with Nero's "Follies and Crimes" (section 6.19f). The Roman historian Tacitus, who was not a Jew or Christian, likewise mentions this homosexual behavior of Nero as a "crime and abomination" (Annals 15.37).
Let's move to the Stoic philosophy. Stoicism was considered the unofficial philosophy of the Roman world. The "Discourses" of Epictetus (55-135 AD) condemns both adultery and homosexuality:
What does the catamite (homosexual) lose? His manhood. What does an Adulterer lose? His self-respect, self control and good behaviour.
Epictetus, Discourses 2.10.17-18
The Discourses of Epictetus refer to Homosexual behaviour as something shameful (Discourses 3.1.30-32) and confounding the sexes as against nature (Discourses 1.16.14).
Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) was a Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. His book the "Meditations" also mentions homosexual behavior as "not a virtue":
There is no wild beast, homosexual, Nero, or Phalaris but obeys the twitchings of impulse.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 3.16
So, one can see from just these few of many examples that in ancient Rome, homosexuality was NOT considered perfectly accepted normal behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry rufus, all of the evidence (and the historians) disagree with you. Homosexuality was widespread among the Greeks and Romans.
You shouldn't take Suetonius' criticisms of Nero as evidence of homophobia. First of all, Nero was hated, so people would have picked on anything he did. But secondly, castrating a man in order to turn him into a woman isn't homosexuality; it's mutilation! Being anti-mutilation doesn't translate into anti-homosexuality!!!
Many, if not most Roman emperors had male catamites. Caesar was bisexual, as were Tiberius, Nero, Elegabalus, and plenty of others. Hadrian was homosexual.
But you should know all of this, because you've read Suetonius, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Goldfish
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Sorry rufus, all of the evidence (and the historians) disagree with you. |
How? I quoted Suetonius, Tacitus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius correctly, not out of context, and gave the references so that others may read those passages for themselves.
| Quote: |
Homosexuality was widespread among the Greeks and Romans. |
I never said it did not exist. It certainly did. I don't know if it was any more "widespread" than at any other time in history. But that wasn't my point. What I said was:
"in ancient Rome, homosexuality was NOT considered perfectly accepted normal behavior."
I demonstrated, by citing Suetonius, Tacitus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius that it was not considered "normal or accepted behaviour", and not that it didn't exist or how widespread it was.
| Quote: |
You shouldn't take Suetonius' criticisms of Nero as evidence of homophobia. First of all, Nero was hated, so people would have picked on anything he did. |
Well, picking on the fact that Nero married Sporus (a man), or that Doryphorus (a man) married Nero seems to confirm that that behaviour was unacceptable among most Romans. Even if Suetonius and Tacitus lied about Nero's homosexual marriage, his incest or adultery, the fact that they list it among his "crimes and follies" proves that homosexualality was NOT considered perfectly accepted normal behavior among ancient Romans.
| Quote: |
But secondly, castrating a man in order to turn him into a woman isn't homosexuality; it's mutilation! Being anti-mutilation doesn't translate into anti-homosexuality!!! |
Even if we put Sporus's castration aside, the fact that Nero married him, as well as Doryphorus, who was not castrated, and the Roman historians lists these homosexual marriages in the same context as incest and adultery proves it was considered immoral among non-christian Romans.
| Quote: |
Many, if not most Roman emperors had male catamites. Caesar was bisexual, as were Tiberius, Nero, Elegabalus, and plenty of others. Hadrian was homosexual. |
Saying that many Roman emperors were homosexual or adulterous does not make that behaviour acceptable. The fact that the historians listed it among their crimes and follies shows that it was considered unacceptable by the ancient Roman (not Christian or Jewish) moral standards. The Stoics, Epictetus, etc. considered it against nature and shameful.
The point I am proving by citing Suetonius, Tacitus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius is that homosexuality was not considered "normal or accepted behaviour" among the Roman populace or among it's leading philosophers. That's my point. And that is in contrast to the latest myth that the ancient Roman world was this bastion of homosexual tolerance that became ruined when that hateful homophobic Christianity began to spread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Saying that many Roman emperors were homosexual or adulterous does not make that behaviour acceptable.
|
Yeah, it sort of does. If the leaders were flagrant homosexuals, that means that they weren't afraid of it being used against them.
| rufus wrote: |
The fact that the historians listed it among their crimes and follies shows that it was considered unacceptable by the ancient Roman (not Christian or Jewish) moral standards. The Stoics, Epictetus, etc. considered it against nature and shameful. |
Suetonius was writing in the second century A.D., which means that he wasn't a contemporary of any of the early emperors. As for the philosophers, you can hardly take what they say to reflect the attitude of the average Roman.
Wealthy Roman and Greek men had sex with men and in Greece pedophilia was common. Bisexuality was MUCH more common in ancient Greece and Rome than it is in our society.
There's a Wikipedia article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | If the leaders were flagrant homosexuals, that means that they weren't afraid of it being used against them. |
So, a leader of an empire who is free to do what he/she wants, when he/she wants without fear of populous retraction (in other words; can't get voted out of office or impeached), chooses to engage in unacceptable behavior somehow makes that behavior acceptable? Ridiculous.
All in all P, I think rufus made a valid point. It may have been widespread, it may have been flagrant, but that doesn't mean it was acceptable by societal standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
So, a leader of an empire who is free to do what he/she wants, when he/she wants without fear of populous retraction (in other words; can't get voted out of office or impeached), chooses to engage in unacceptable behavior somehow makes that behavior acceptable? Ridiculous.
|
I don't think you understand how Roman politics worked. It is true that they didn't have populous retraction, but they certainly had a form of impeachment, which most often took the form of a very violent assassination. Do you have any idea how many conspiracies there were in ancient Rome and how many emperors were murdered? Out of the first 8 emperors, something like 6 were assassinated! If homosexuality was such a taboo in Roman culture, then that could have been used against the emperor in order to help gain support for a conspiracy or insurrection.
As for the population, the emperors were constantly struggling with maintaining order on the population. Why do you think they endorsed the gladiatorial games so heavily? It was primarily a means of distracting the populace, because the emperors understood that it was a threat. The fact that they were dictators does not mean that they had no respect for public opinion.
| RevJP wrote: |
All in all P, I think rufus made a valid point. It may have been widespread, it may have been flagrant, but that doesn't mean it was acceptable by societal standards. |
Have you guys taken any Greek and Roman studies in university? In the courses I took it was made very clear that homosexuality was rampant in the ancient world.
Let's put it this way: It was MORE accepted in Roman (and especially Greek) society than it is in ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If homosexuality was such a taboo in Roman culture, then that could have been used against the emperor in order to help gain support for a conspiracy or insurrection. |
As usual, you go way overboard.
No one said it was 'such a taboo'. It was simply asserted that it was not an accepted behavior.
and then, since you are such a learned individual regarding the politics of early Rome, perhaps you would explain why the Senate would conspire to kill the dictatorial leader of the empire because of his choice of bedmates. My history tells me that they would have been, and were, more interested in the power of the politics and not who was sleeping with what. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
and then, since you are such a learned individual regarding the politics of early Rome, perhaps you would explain why the Senate would conspire to kill the dictatorial leader of the empire because of his choice of bedmates. My history tells me that they would have been, and were, more interested in the power of the politics and not who was sleeping with what. |
It's pretty simple: Politicians always had to keep their noses clean. It's true today, and it was true back then. Why give your opponents ammunition if you don't have to?
The fact that emperors had lots of male catamites and were unashamed of it shows that they weren't worried about it causing any potential political problems for them, and they DEFINITELY had to watch out for potential political problems, much more so than any politician alive today.
Another point to be made is that Romans were pretty religious, and the emperor was often also the Pontifex Maximus, which was basically Pope.
Piety and morality were basically controlled by the church, and since the emperor either was the head of the church, or himself appointed one of his buddies as the head of the church, the church clearly wouldn't have condemned actions such as homosexuality, since no bisexual or homosexual emperor is going to make himself look bad. And if the church says homosexuality is ok, then it's ok.
Emperors really only got into trouble when they started doing really crazy stuff like castrating their catamites and marrying them. Homosexuality was totally fine and accepted, but MARRYING another guy was considered to be a heinous crime. The criticisms against Nero from above weren't against his homosexuality so much as him defying tradition.
Another interesting point is that although male homosexuality was accepted, female homosexuality was definitely not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are way off base P...
Early Roman leaders were anything but 'moral', and they feared nothing save a knife in the back. Their rule was fairly absolute and the politics of the time revolved around running the empire and the gain of wealth and power, not someone's sexual appetites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Early Roman leaders were anything but 'moral',
|
Where did I ever dispute this?!?
| RevJP wrote: |
and they feared nothing save a knife in the back.
|
That's exactly what I said!
Listen, this is a pretty silly argument. If you don't believe that homosexuality was accepted in Rome, then you're just plain wrong. Go to your nearest university and visit the department of Greek and Roman studies. Ask any professor. They'll tell you the same thing that I'm saying.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then here is a Wikipedia article on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_rome
Highlights:
| Quote: | | In the mid Republic homosexual acts were widely accepted, if the active partner was a Roman, and the passive partner a slave or non-Roman. |
The main debate back then seems to have revolved around how it was bad for a real man to play the passive role during homosexual sex, and apparently the Romans condemned pedophilia, although the Greeks did not.
| Quote: | | With the arrival of Christianity, but perhaps also a little earlier, all kinds of same-sex love became increasingly taboo. In 390, the first law banning same-sex love was enacted, making it punishable by death. |
Well, at least Christians have stayed consistent... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Go to your nearest university and visit the department of Greek and Roman studies. Ask any professor. They'll tell you the same thing that I'm saying. |
Thanks for the advice, however I have been there and done that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Go to your nearest university and visit the department of Greek and Roman studies. Ask any professor. They'll tell you the same thing that I'm saying. |
Thanks for the advice, however I have been there and done that. |
And you believe that homosexuality was not 'normal' or 'accepted' among Romans?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Goldfish
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Have you guys taken any Greek and Roman studies in university? |
Well, if we did, and "if" they taught it correctly we should have learned that Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars 6.27-29 list's it as a folly and crime; Marcus Aurelius in Meditations 3.16 said it was not a virtue; Epictetus in his Discourses 2.10.17-18 condemns both adultery and homosexuality, Discourses 3.1.30-32 said it was shameful, and Discourses 1.16.14 said it was against nature. Did you learn to cite your sources in your "university studies"? Or, should we learn to just "google wiki"?
| Quote: |
Let's put it this way: It was MORE accepted in Roman (and especially Greek) society than it is in ours. |
Plato (428-348 B.C.) was a student of Socrates. His last work was the "Laws". Plato the forth century "Greek" said it was against nature:
I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and woman; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature.
Plato: Laws, Book 1.636
Did they teach that in the Greek and Roman studies at the university? Or does that not fit in with the university's "gay agenda"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5705
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Well, if we did, and "if" they taught it correctly we should have learned that Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars 6.27-29 list's it as a folly and crime; |
Castrating and marrying a boy, yes.
| rufus wrote: | | Marcus Aurelius in Meditations 3.16 said it was not a virtue; |
"Not a virtue" is not equivalent to "not accepted by society."
I'd hardly call driving cars around a "virtue" but it's certainly accepted by society.
| rufus wrote: | | Epictetus in his Discourses 2.10.17-18 condemns both adultery and homosexuality |
Claims that the younger partner in a pederastic relationship loses his manhood, actually.
| rufus wrote: | | Discourses 3.1.30-32 said it was shameful, and Discourses 1.16.14 said it was against nature. |
| rufus wrote: | | The Discourses of Epictetus refer to Homosexual behaviour as something shameful (Discourses 3.1.30-32) and confounding the sexes as against nature (Discourses 1.16.14) |
3.1.30-32 refers to women desiring catamites (again, the younger partner in a pederastic relationship) as silly. Not only that, but specifically that desiring hairless men (as a woman) is silly. The context:
| Epictetus wrote: | | Are you man or woman? "Man." Adorn yourself then as man, not as woman. Woman is naturally smooth and delicate; and if she has much hair (on her body), she is a monster and is exhibited at Rome among monsters. And in a man it is monstrous not to have hair; and if he has no hair, he is a monster; but if he cuts off his hairs and plucks them out, what shall we do with him? where shall we exhibit him? and under what name shall we show him? "I will exhibit to you a man who chooses to be a woman rather than a man." What a terrible sight! There is no man who will not wonder at such a notice. Indeed I think that the men who pluck out their hairs do what they do without knowing what they do. Man what fault have you to find with your nature? That it made you a man? What then? was it fit that nature should make all human creatures women? and what advantage in that case would you have had in being adorned? for whom would you have adorned yourself, if all human creatures were women? But you are not pleased with the matter: set to work then upon the whole business. Take away -- what is its name? -- that which is the cause of the hairs: make yourself a woman in all respects, that we may not be mistaken: do not make one half man, and the other half woman. Whom do you wish to please? The women?, Please them as a man. "Well; but they like smooth men." Will you not hang yourself? and if women took delight in catamites, would you become one? Is this your business? were you born for this purpose, that dissolute women should delight in you? Shall we make such a one as you a citizen of Corinth and perchance a prefect of the city, or chief of the youth, or general or superintendent of the games? Well, and when you have taken a wife, do you intend to have your hairs plucked out? To please whom and for what purpose? And when you have begotten children, will you introduce them also into the state with the habit of plucking their hairs? A beautiful citizen, and senator and rhetorician. We ought to pray that such young men be born among us and brought up. |
As to 1.16.14, it's again simply Epictetus believing that there are easy distinguishing marks between the sexes and that these should be maintained. I don't even know what specific portion of it you think you're referring to but here's the only relevant content from Discourses 1 chapter 16:
| Epictetus wrote: | | Well, let us omit the works of nature and contemplate her smaller acts. Is there anything less useful than the hair on the chin? What then, has not nature used this hair also in the most suitable manner possible? Has she not by it distinguished the male and the female? does not the nature of every man forthwith proclaim from a distance, "I am a man; as such approach me, as such speak to me; look for nothing else; see the signs?" Again, in the case of women, as she has mingled something softer in the voice, so she has also deprived them of hair (on the chin). You say:Not so; the human animal ought to have been left without marks of distinction, and each of us should have been obliged to proclaim, ‘I am a man.' But how is not the sign beautiful and becoming, and venerable? how much more beautiful than the *Male Rooster*’s comb, how much more becoming than the lion’s mane? For this reason we ought to preserve the signs which God has given, we ought not to throw them away, nor to confound, as much as we can, the distinctions of the sexes. |
| rufus wrote: | | Did you learn to cite your sources in your "university studies"? Or, should we learn to just "google wiki"? |
Seeing as you didn't bother to actually pay much attention to any of your sources this is a rather hypocritical accusation, isn't it?
| rufus wrote: | Plato (428-348 B.C.) was a student of Socrates. His last work was the "Laws". Plato the forth century "Greek" said it was against nature:
I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and woman; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature.
Plato: Laws, Book 1.636 |
Plato was specifically condemning the fact that homosexuality was commonly accepted, if you bother to look at the context.
| rufus wrote: | | Did they teach that in the Greek and Roman studies at the university? Or does that not fit in with the university's "gay agenda"? |
You're so cute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P... wrote: | | And you believe that homosexuality was not 'normal' or 'accepted' among Romans?!? |
What did I post exactly?
| Quote: | | It may have been widespread, it may have been flagrant, but that doesn't mean it was acceptable by societal standards. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
