When I was in college, a friend of mine alluded to the idea that “the Romans accepted homosexuality and it resulted in the Empire’s collapse”. I quickly and derisively told her that the Roman Empire actually collapsed after making Christianity the compulsory faith of the state. That certainly shut her up, and it’s mostly true, but I was just using her flawed logic to shut her down. Ever since then I’ve wondered where her idea came from.
I’ve done some limited research and found the story of homosexual mores in Rome is fairly complicated, but it seems that the culture became more puritanical as it was in decline. Is there anything that supports her idea that gayer empires will prematurely fall while straight ones last longer? Or is it, as I suspect, a just-so impromptu argument developed by fundamental Christians to support their basic bigotry? If the latter, any idea where such a wrong idea originated?
There’s always the whole “homosexuals don’t breed so our Empire won’t have a steady influx of warrior children from them” idea.
Probably somewhere in Leviticus (the same place where the consumption of shellfish is similarly prohibited yet you can’t stir the good Christian folk with a stick at Lobsterfest).
Gibbon in “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” does make the claim that roman citizens became effeminate and unwilling to live harsh military lifestyles to maintain the empire. But then he also blames the adoption of Christianity : “Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire.”
Fundamentalist Christians cherry picking to support their arguments and ignoring the bits they don’t like? Unpossible.
First of all, homosexuality did not exist as a concept in Roman times. You can tell your friend to “shove it”.
Second, the social rejection of male homosexuality in Western culture is mainly a result of the 18’th Century Victorian era mentally disturbed moral rules code, values that modern era Christianity has adopted — for many reasons that are not apt to discuss here.
I always thought it based on the “reasoning” that acceptance of homosexuality = decadence, decadence brought on the decline of the Roman Empire, therefore homosexuality destroys societies.
Absolutely. The later declining Roman empire was definitely marked by far less acceptance of Homosexuality (and other aspects of culture accepted in classical pagan Greco-Roman culture, but considered taboo in Christianity).
The Massacre of Thessalonica was on example of this (though there was plenty more involved than attitudes to homosexuality). Basically the massacre was triggered when the Christian Garrison tried to arrest a popular charioteer for a homosexual offence (actually attempted rape, but the contemporary accounts make clear it was homosexual nature of it that was so offensive to the Christian garrison), and were in turn lynched by the Greek populace (many of who were either pagan, or still had more classical attitudes to such things).
As I was reading your responses, I was reminded of the modern anti-gay revisionist history that the high-up Nazi’s were all gay because basically gay men are less compassionate and more brutal, or something like that. I think there was a book called the Pink Swastika. It’s funny how, apparently, gays make the Roman Empire weak and decadent, but make the Nazis horrible viscous monsters. I guess it’s like the mask from Mask, it brings out the worst in you, huh? :rolleyes:
That’s a good catch. “Gay men would rather have fun,” essentially.
First of all, homosexuality (in terms of behavior) certainly did exist as a concept, as there were, at times, laws against men engaging in sexual behavior with other men within the Roman Empire, though they were enforced to varying degrees over time. It’s true that the modern concept of “being a homosexual” didn’t exist then. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
Second of all, she would have loved nothing more than to be persecuted by the “evil atheist” who told her to shut up, just as she was making a good point. I prefer to put someone in their place by argument rather than invective, because it doesn’t give them a chance to climb up on a cross.
You’re misreading what people are writing. The idea, such as it is, was that decadence brought down Rome, and that acceptance of homosexual acts is one aspect or indicator of that decadence.
Again you’re missing the point here. Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is a modern concept. There is the sex act and the orientation of the person, which are two different things. The latter did not exist in Roman times. And the former is not necessarily tied to the latter as heterosexual men often have sex with other men without being what we call “gay” today.
Bolding mine, I know this probably isn’t what you meant, but whilst the ‘idea’ of sexual orientation didn’t exist, it doesn’t mean there weren’t gay people. They just didn’t carry a label.
Good point. Of course, people haven’t changed since then, just our understanding. The concept of “sexual orientation” as we understand it today did not exist in Roman times. Or at least we don’t think it did.
I challenge this. What was different in Roman times is that it was not considered to be an indicator of homosexuality to have sex with a social inferior of the same gender as long as you were the dominant male.
There were male individuals in Rome who by preference sought out contact with other men in preference to women, but they just didn’t have one word for them, they had two words based on whether they were dominant or submissive. Also they were likely to marry and bear children from social duty regardless of their preference. But still for all intents and purposes they had a concept for men that preferred sexual contact with other men.
I used to wonder the same thing myself and the answer is that the new testament changed the dietary laws. Christ makes it clear in Matthew 15 that it isn’t what we eat that makes us unclean but what we think and say. In Acts 10 Peter finds out that God has made all meat good to eat. There’s also a section of the bible where two people argue over whether or not you have to have followed the laws of Moses to become a Christian. Ultimately, no. So the food thing was likely a good way to get more converts.
There does seem to be a high degree of correlation between the conduct of men identified as cinaedi and that of some men now labeled ‘homosexuals,’ though it must be appreciated that the modern term is clinical while the ancient one is emotional and even hostile, and that both have been imposed from outside."
Richard W. Hooper’s Bryn Mawr Classical Review of The Priapus Poems
Heres another cite:
Cinaedus: A man “whose most salient feature was a supposedly “feminine” love of being sexually penetrated by other men.” (Winkler, 1990).
This is preposterous. Aside from the fact that “18th century Victorian” is like saying “17th century Star Wars fans,” social rejection of homosexuality was pretty well set a long time before then. Homosexuality in the England of William Shakepeare, two centuries before Victorian times, carried the death penalty.
This “Blame all repressive attitudes on the Victorians” thing is common, I guess, but it’s silly.
I was actually using “gay” in it’s earlier “hedonistic pleasure-seeking” meaning, as well as it’s reference to homosexuality. The term came to be identified with homosexuals precisely because it indicated a (supposed) decadence that Der Trihs was referring to.
You just said I was missing the point, then more or less repeated exactly what I wrote.
I think this is true. My understanding is these people were thought odd, and possibly distasteful. I think it’s safe to say that the modern concept of a bifurcated gay/straight orientation (where you’re one or the other) is really the oddity, anyway. True, we’re more accepting of people’s natural predispositions (and that’s a good thing), but we feel this need to put everyone in a category, regardless of the fit. Maybe we could learn from the ancients in that respect. People are just what they are and leave it at that.